Spark crossed a line

I think I said this too...."people lie and they do it frequently, I'm surprised as a cop that you haven't accepted that. We have seen here in the last couple of pages where someone got caught lying and tries to come up with dumb excuses. That is just human nature. Unfortunately the internet had made it possible for the lies to increase in size and spread much farther, but it also has made checking up on facts much easier"

What perplexes me is the fact that this type incessant character assasination- even if justifiable is not constructive, it's destructive and destructive behavior ultimately hurts both the target and the destroyer. Let me know if I'm wrong about this in about 30 days.Not only that but forum owners are looked up to as paragons of patience, diplomacy and forgiveness. I've seen forums this large go down the tubes in the bat of an eye thanks to a few self destructive maneuvers by owners and moderators- justifiable for revenge- or not, it hurts goodwill and goodwill is the life blood of online communities. Sorry for preaching, I just like this place too much to see it end up like some of my favorite but now deseased website communities.
 
I have a totally Different Read on this Stuff.

I Think it has helped both the Forum and Mr. Strider.

The long Term Effect will be--Just more of the Same.

This has evidently been going on for about 4 years and all parties are still here and seem to be flourishing.

At best--Threads like this are Moot.

I have no idea why they persist but it is obvious that it will continue forever.

Jim
 
Horned Toad, that was a well worded and well reasoned post.

So let's analyze some of the things you've brought up.

You said Mick Strider told you about his military service time without hesitation and you feel you believe him. Tell us, does it match what his records show in the other thread?
If you knew how long it takes me to type this you would ask much shorter question!
I am going to read the front of the other thread again before I answer the first part.
If Mick Strider wasn't going to go to Somalia in a military capacity, but as a civilian contractor, that is a whole new ball of wax. Why, when he's already going to go to jail for 5 years, would a Federal Judge decide to sentence him to Somalia where he'd be armed, a flight risk, and under zero supervision, especially with zero special skills? At least under military service, he'd still be accountable and supervised under UCMJ, as a contractor he'd be essentially a civilian without even so much as a monitoring anklet. Furthermore that still doesn't address the removal of troops from the region and the funding cuts. Finally, if a judge was going to do this back then, where are the similar "special case" sentencing agreements?

On the second part, now you are assuming a gun toting PMC, I just said non military. I really have no clue what the non military side does. I do find it funny that you think anyone would be a flight risk in Mogadishu in late 93. The only planes flying in and out of there were ours and the UN, maybe I am wrong but trying to E&E out of there cross county would be the last thing I would want to try. Maybe someone can chime in here with a normal case, but as I understand plea bargaining’s they go like this. Say you have 3 charges stacked against you. It may be hard for the prosecutor to prove all three or the penalties may not be that bad for a first offense, so they say, if you agree to plead guilty charge 1, we drop 2 and 3 and you only get X amount of time. After that if one side or the other doesn’t play ball then things can change and you can get charged with all three.

Last on this as much as I hate using wikipedia, its quick

On December 15, 1993, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin stepped down, taking much of the blame for what was deemed a failed policy. A few hundred Marines remained offshore to assist with any noncombatant evacuation mission that might occur regarding the 1,000-plus U.S. civilians and military advisers remaining as part of the U.S. liaison mission. All U.S. personnel were finally withdrawn by March 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu
As for him making an unspecified trip out of the country on an special operations mission or two, when? During the 65 days he was in C 2/75? Between 86 and 93? If that's the case, he should be able to easily back that up or find someone with actual credentials that can verify he was there; if he can't back it up, he shouldn't be talking about it in the first place. Sorry, but I'm not trusting anything he says without verification; given the runaround we've been given just on stupid things like his service dates, combat time, and the rest it's going to be a tough one for him.

You keep bringing up this 65 day, let me spell this out. If you pass RIP and make it to battalion and they get called up the day after you get there, for better or for worse your going. That’s how it works.

Now what stuff I’ve read here, I would think more 86-93 than with Bat. But Bat would not be 100% outside the realm, I just think slim. The stuff about 308 would not be at Bat.

I do agree with you 100% that if you can’t back it up don’t talk about it.
 
What perplexes me is the fact that this type incessant character assasination- even if justifiable is not constructive, it's destructive and destructive behavior ultimately hurts both the target and the destroyer. Let me know if I'm wrong about this in about 30 days.

Sorry for preaching, I just like this place too much to see it end up like some of my favorite but now deseased website communities.

I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. In thirty days this forum will have thousands of new members that aren't here today. As I have posted before, back approximately 7 to 8 years ago there were many threads about Kevin McClung and Lynn Griffith that were incredibly heated. Much of the same stuff was being posted back then that you see in the threads about Mick. There were people back then that were saying that those threads would lead to the end of Bladeforums. The controversy surrounding the threads about Mick are not going to affect the popularity of this forum, except in a very small group of people. Most of those people only joined to take part in the Strider threads and to comment about how much they thought Bladeforums sucked anyway. The fact that they think that Bladeforums is the sewer of the internet is not going to mean beans. However, I do admit that there will be some people that I respect very much that will no longer take part on this forum.

The other thread was up and running thirty days ago, and if anything, more members joined during and after its run. My guess is that in thirty days things won't be any different.
 
Toad, I think what perplexes myself, and I'm sure some others, is this type of attitude of Strider supporters to try and find all sorts of reasons to go back and come up with weird reasons to explain away events that have already happened and try and spin them to question if they did actually occur. If you go to Spark's locked thread you can read the docket sheet. Mick was charged with 4 federal felonies, 2 carjacking, use of firearm during that carjacking, and transporting stolen property across state lines. Fact. He entered into a plea agreement. Fact. One count of carjacking was dropped and he got 5 years of prison time and probation, the terms of which were modified after his release, but the docket sheet covers all the events up to the end of the probation. It all happened so how can you question it? I'm don't mean this to sound bad, but both you and wolfman, both of you claiming to be LEO, have tried this and quite frankly your opinion on the sentence doesn't mean squat because IT ALREADY HAPPENED!

I have just been reading that whole thing. You know being an LEO in my field isn’t like law and order. Out of all my cases that have been prosecuted most pled out. I have had two go to trial. One was good one wasn’t good. I had one other one lately even think about a trial and I must come off better in person because after talking with his defense attorney they decided they would plead. I don’t know how many cases total, but out of all of them those three and the assault are the only time I have ever talked to the prosecutor in person. That’s 4 times, the rest of the times is call them on the phone, get a yes or no and do paperwork.


So I am muddling through the docket wishing they would put more stuff in layman’s terms
 
I have just been reading that whole thing. You know being an LEO in my field isn’t like law and order. Out of all my cases that have been prosecuted most pled out. I have had two go to trial. One was good one wasn’t good. I had one other one lately even think about a trial and I must come off better in person because after talking with his defense attorney they decided they would plead. I don’t know how many cases total, but out of all of them those three and the assault are the only time I have ever talked to the prosecutor in person. That’s 4 times, the rest of the times is call them on the phone, get a yes or no and do paperwork.


So I am muddling through the docket wishing they would put more stuff in layman’s terms

Well Toad, I've been telling people it ain't like tv. Just like in civil trials, more than 90% of criminal cases are plead out (settled in civil law terms). If you look at my posts in the other thread you'll see I posted a bunch of links to federal sentencing guidelines, the US atty's manuals, etc... What the thing that has frustrated me the most is that most of the posters have not even read Spark's info totally.

And what made me jump on Ira for the posts about him as a LEO being involved in pleas himself is that your experience- barely speaking to prosecutors- is the norm. I hate to break it to people but many prosecutors look down on LEO's and they would very rarely be consulting with LEO's on legal issues. You catch them and then they prosecute and you are a witness and that is all. But just looking over his trial info, I think that you'll see it is straightforward and there is nothing mystical there- just everyday stuff.
 
To clarify, it was never said that a Judge offered this. What was said was it was offered by a prosecutor. Other places you say it was a written offer.
If it was offered by the judge, prosecutor, or fairy godmother is irrelevant, and quite frankly already addressed. Just to refresh your memory, federal sentencing guidelines prohibit such deals from being made. This isn't something you can lie about, it's hard, verifiable, already linked to & cited fact. Mick Strider can claim anyone offered it, it doesn't matter, because it's unverified by him, impossible to have happened, and not even a believable lie. Any competent defense attorny is going to make sure that any deal involving his client not actually going behind bars is going to be written down before he has his client agree to it. Plea bargains are contracts, not handshake, wink & nod affairs that are written up after the sentencing is done.

Please show anywhere that Mick Strider claimed that a Judge had agreed to this or that it was a written offer. You keep stating these things as if it was a fact Mick put forth. What he said was it was offered. I have not seen it stated that a Judge ever knew about it or that it was ever written. I personally do not put it past a prosecutor to "offer" something like this just to get what they want.
If you think that a defense attorney is going to allow a prosecutor to make such an offer, without getting it in writing, then you must really be gullible. Again, plea bargain agreements are contracts. I can't show that Mick Strider said a judge or prosecutor, or fair godmother offered this because quite likely the entire Somalia aspect of the plea bargain is a figment of his imagination. All we have is his word that the prosecutor "changed his mind" and his word is worthless given all the inconsistencies already repeatedly pointed out

This, to me, is another instance of the point about this thread, Spark crossing a line. You have sidetracked that, but you keep crossing it, you keep attributing statements that you can't show were made.
To me, this is another instance of a Strider groupie sidetracking, misdirecting, and trying to use a grain of truth to conceal the bigger lie. You can't attack the federal sentencing guidelines, you can't provide any paperwork backing this up, you can't give a reason why the defense wouldn't have this written in stone, you can't attack the fact that it took place 6 years after his 11 month stint in the army, from which he went AWOL, allegedly had a busted spine, and was barred from reenlistment, yet you desperately cling to the vain hope that this Somalia claim is even plausible.

Person claims to have been a ranger, discharged honorably.
World claims he is a lair without proof.
Proof is found that shows he told the truth (some wanted more info that person was not willing to give, came out that they didn't serve "long enough" for certain people, so he is still no good).
Irrelevant. I even state that I feel he served as a Ranger. My primary concern is that he made claims to be a combat vet, that he has a "Special Operations" background, and that he said he was going to be "sentenced" to Somalia. All things you've failed repeatedly to address. In addition, proof is found that Mick Strider misrepresented the nature of his service, proof is found that Mick Strider's service dates shown on the DD214 are incorrect, and proof is found that Mick Strider has no special skills or high-speed background at all. In other words, the proof Mick Strider provided only wound up to more questions being asked.

Next the people who still don't like him, take other statements, and with just a "feeling" go and call all of these statements a lie. Because the person attacked does not wish to communicate with these people, they jump up and down waving their "feelings" and yelling "see, he lies". No proof needed.
What? I guess you've chosen to ignore the Osman lawsuit, the records of Strider's service, and other court documents then? You know, the items that show he isn't a combat vet, with a Special Operations background, who was never overseas during the time's he was actually sitting in jail? Sorry, no dice, your "feelings" are neatly contradicted by the facts.

The problem, there is no proof to point to one lie. There are things people wanted to be a lie, that were then shown not to be. There are statements by others that are not accurate, but none linked to the individual.
Except, you know, the direct quotes from Mick Strider saying he's a combat vet. And him showing off his CQB rig, complete with magazines and holsters for guns he couldn't legally touch. And the whole Chris Osman lawsuit settlement where he admits he isn't. And the Somalia claim he can't back up. Furthermore, shifting the blame from Mick Strider to someone else isn't going to work here either, because someone had to tell Bolke that Mick Strider was serving in SOCOM / JSOC / Wherever. Someone had to say he had combat time. And even if he didn't say it, he never corrected it either which says a lot as well.

Pricecw, you've done an admirable job staying on message. Too bad your strident cries of "there's no proof!" fall flat when they've been repeatedly debunked.
 
Mick must have an idiot for a defence lawyer if he didn't know that the sentencing guidelines prohibited the prosecutor from making such a deal.
 
What perplexes me is the fact that this type incessant character assasination- even if justifiable is not constructive, it's destructive and destructive behavior ultimately hurts both the target and the destroyer. Let me know if I'm wrong about this in about 30 days.Not only that but forum owners are looked up to as paragons of patience, diplomacy and forgiveness. I've seen forums this large go down the tubes in the bat of an eye thanks to a few self destructive maneuvers by owners and moderators- justifiable for revenge- or not, it hurts goodwill and goodwill is the life blood of online communities. Sorry for preaching, I just like this place too much to see it end up like some of my favorite but now deseased website communities.

You know, I love the term "character assassination" especially when it's used to incorrectly identify who's being harmed.

Thanks for your concern for BladeForums.com. Since this has Mick Strider BS began, registration, new posts, new threads, and other statistics are largely unchanged, despite predictions of doom and gloom and despair. The trends are all pretty much the same as I'd expect after almost 11 years of doing this.

The reason for this, I'd suspect, is because unlike certain posters claims of "character assassination" "non constructive / destructive" or "witch hunts" or people "being out to get" someone, the facts in this matter speak for themselves and have yet to be refuted by any of the "faithful" no matter how much they attempt to attack the messenger, which, as this thread so aptly illustrates, is about the only defense available.

So please, pretty please, leave the concerns for the well being of this site to me, since I pay the bills. If you want to worry about a community self destructing, worry about the people who are in bed with the type of person described ever so accurately in post #396 here
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4420419&postcount=396
 
NOT THAT I THINK IT HAPPENED THIS WAY!!! but...............

everyone says with the fed sentencing giudelines he couldnt have cut a deal and been sentenced to somalia, thats not entirely correct, all they would have to do is come to a agreement prior to the trial where the district attorney would decline prosecution if the defendant agrees to do "A" or do "B" thus the somalia stuff. the charges could be "set aside" until the defendant complies with the agreement, once he does its dropped, or if he doesnt comply they would be refiled.

i doubt it happened that way but its possible and to say its not is not correct imho.
 
NOT THAT I THINK IT HAPPENED THIS WAY!!! but...............

everyone says with the fed sentencing giudelines he couldnt have cut a deal and been sentenced to somalia, thats not entirely correct, all they would have to do is come to a agreement prior to the trial where the district attorney would decline prosecution if the defendant agrees to do "A" or do "B" thus the somalia stuff. the charges could be "set aside" until the defendant complies with the agreement, once he does its dropped, or if he doesnt comply they would be refiled.

i doubt it happened that way but its possible and to say its not is not correct imho.

Well, from your Go Horns and Go Cowboys, I'll bet you're in Texas, which happens to be where the procedure you described is enacted into law- deferred adjudication or deferred prosecution.

"There’s a lot of confusion about the terms “deferred disposition” and “deferred adjudication” in Texas.

Deferred adjudication is a type of actual probation, for a Class B misdemeanor or higher charge, where the judge says (in legalese), “Based on your plea of No Contest or Guilty, I could find you guilty, but I’m not going to. I’m going to place you on probation, and if you jump through the hoops of probation, at the end of the case you will never be found guilty of the charge.”

To defer – to put off, or postpone. To adjudicate – in the criminal context it means to find you guilty. So when the judge places a defendant on deferred adjudication, he is postponing finding the person guilty, and will never find them guilty, if they successfully complete the terms of probation.

In Texas, that means a real, formal probation with a monthly visit to a probation officer, minimum community service hours, urinalysis for drugs and alcohol, fines, court costs and $62 per month probation fees.

Again, the major distinction here is that this is only for Class B and Class A misdemeanors, and felony charges in Texas. It’s not for Class C, that is, traffic ticket level offenses.

Deferred adjudications are not expungeable, but most are eligible for Motions of Non-Disclosure.

Deferred disposition is only for Class C charges, and is not a formal reporting probation. The theory is the same – that is, if you pay a (smaller) fine, usually take a class, and stay out of trouble, at the end of the deferral period you are not convicted of the offense.

There is no probation officer, or monthly meeting. I suppose you could say that you are on your own probation, but that’s it. Some clerk will pull your file at the end of the term, check to see that monies are paid, certificates for classes are turned in, and run a criminal background check to see that you did indeed stay out of trouble. Then the case is dismissed.

For Class C Assaults, Theft, Public Intoxication, Minor in Possession and similar non-traffic offenses, this is the same as agreeing to take defensive driving, pay a small fine, and not pick up any more traffic tickets to get a speeding ticket dismissed.

In a successfully completed deferred disposition, you are specifically by statute entitled to seek an expunction, not just the less complete sealing of records.

Part of this confusion is perpetuated by Class C prosecutors, and even some Municipal Court judges, who continually refer to this process as “deferred adjudication”. In fact, the two are very different."

http://blog.austindefense.com/2007/02/articles/probation-jail-and-prison/deferred-disposition-vs-deferred-adjudication-in-texas/


Have a look at Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and see if you find a similar provision. I'll be waiting. (Hint: it ain't there). And yes, I am licensed to practice law in Texas.
 
so ya are saying a fed DA cannot decline to prosecute once the grand jury has returned a indictment?? he has no discretion??

its always been my understanding a DA can do pretty much as he pleases as far as what cases he prosecutes.

i have 2 degrees in CJ and need 6 hours for my MA FWIW.

and again, it doesnt matter to me,

where do ya live/practice, in TX?
 
I keep reading statements to the effect of "lock this thread, it serves no purpose", and I quite frankly disagree. There are apparently many people wanting to defend Strider, and this thread gives them the opportunity. There are some who want to debate his 'sins', and again here they have the opportunity. Some people are looking for reasons to keep, or sell, or buy Strider knives... Some people are here solely for amusement I would imagine, and again the thread delivers. The fact that it is continuing tells me that it is meeting needs somewhere.
Any personal feelings that I have about the debate aside, I am glad that the information is here. I am glad that Spark put it together, and I am glad that he allows dissenting viewpoints to be posted. As for the name calling and whatnot, that sort of behavior is human nature and is echoed in broad strokes throughout our society, so why should we expect this forum to be immune? It is sad, but c'est la vie. Spark's behavior in this thread was the deciding factor in my decision to pony up some money to support the forum.
 
so ya are saying a fed DA cannot decline to prosecute once the grand jury has returned a indictment?? he has no discretion??

its always been my understanding a DA can do pretty much as he pleases as far as what cases he prosecutes.

i have 2 degrees in CJ and need 6 hours for my MA FWIW.

and again, it doesnt matter to me,

where do ya live/practice, in TX?

Actually I must confess that I made a mistatement of procedure, pre-trial diversion is available at the federal level.

9-22.010 Introduction

Pretrial diversion (PTD) is an alternative to prosecution which seeks to divert certain offenders from traditional criminal justice processing into a program of supervision and services administered by the U.S. Probation Service. In the majority of cases, offenders are diverted at the pre-charge stage. Participants who successfully complete the program will not be charged or, if charged, will have the charges against them dismissed; unsuccessful participants are returned for prosecution.

The major objectives of pretrial diversion are:

To prevent future criminal activity among certain offenders by diverting them from traditional processing into community supervision and services.

To save prosecutive and judicial resources for concentration on major cases.

To provide, where appropriate, a vehicle for restitution to communities and victims of crime.

The period of supervision is not to exceed 18 months, but may be reduced.
9-22.100 Eligibility Criteria

The U.S. Attorney, in his/her discretion, may divert any individual against whom a prosecutable case exists and who is not:


Accused of an offense which, under existing Department guidelines, should be diverted to the State for prosecution;

A person with two or more prior felony convictions;

An addict;

A public official or former public official accused of an offense arising out of an alleged violation of a public trust; or

Accused of an offense related to national security or foreign affairs.
9-22.200 Pretrial Diversion Procedures

For the procedures to be followed for pretrial diversion agreements, see the Criminal Resource Manual at 712.

at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/22mcrm.htm

and

712 Pretrial Diversion

Divertees are initially selected by the U.S. Attorney based on the eligibility criteria stated in USAM 9-22.100:

At the pre-charge stage; or

At any point (prior to trial) at which a PTD agreement is effected.

Participation in the program by the offender is voluntary:

The divertee must sign a contract agreeing to waive his/her rights to a speedy trial and presentment of his/her case within the statute of limitations;

The divertee must have advice of counsel, and if he/she cannot afford counsel, one will be appointed for him/her upon his/her application to the Chief Pretrial Services Officer (or Chief Probation Officer). Appointment of Counsel will be made through the United States Magistrate. Inquiries by magistrates should be directed to the Criminal Justice Act Division, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, (202) 727-2800, for expenditure authorizations.

All information obtained in the course of making the decision to divert an offender is confidential, except that written statements may be used for impeachment purposes. See USA Form 185, Letter to Offender, this Manual at 713.

Upon determining eligibility of an offender for PTD, the U.S. Attorney should refer the case along with the investigative agent's report to either the Chief Pretrial Services Officer or the Chief Probation Officer for a recommendation on the potential suitability of the offender for supervision. See USA Form 184, this Manual at 714.|B814 The Chief Pretrial Services Officer (or the Chief Probation Officer) may make preliminary recommendations to the U.S. Attorney. As part of the background investigation, Pretrial Services will arrange with the United States Marshal's Office to have the divertee fingerprinted and to have such fingerprints submitted to the FBI on card FD-249. At the same time Pretrial Services should request notification of any prior record on the divertee from the FBI Identification Division Records.

If it is determined that PTD is appropriate for an offender, supervision should be tailored to the offender's needs and may include employment, counseling, education, job training, psychiatric care, etc. Many districts have successfully required restitution or forms of community service as part of the pretrial program. Innovative approaches are strongly encouraged.

The program of supervision which is recommended is outlined in the PTD Agreement, agreed upon by all parties, and administered by Pretrial Services.

The Pretrial Diversion Agreement. The diversion period begins upon execution of a Pretrial Diversion Agreement. The Agreement (USA Form 186, Criminal Resource Manual at 715) outlines the terms and conditions of supervision and is signed by the offender, his/her attorney, the prosecutor, and either the Chief Pretrial Services Officer or the Chief Probation Officer. The offender must acknowledge responsibility for his or her behavior, but is not asked to admit guilt. The period of supervision is not to exceed 18 months, but may be reduced. In the case of Federal employees, the PTD Agreement will not require the offender's resignation from Federal service but will explicitly state that administrative action by the Federal agency will not be precluded and need not be delayed by the prosecutor's disposition of the case through diversion. The PTD Agreement may require that the U.S. Attorney provide a copy of the Agreement to the Federal agency by which the divertee is employed.

The Chief Pretrial Services Officer (or the Chief Probation Officer) shall submit an FBI Form 1-12 "Flash Notice," indicating diversion and requesting notification if an arrest occurs.

Successful completion of program/termination from program. The U.S. Attorney will formally decline prosecution upon satisfactory completion of program requirements. Notice of satisfactory completion will be provided to the U.S. Attorney by either the Chief Pretrial Services Officer or the Chief Probation Officer. In addition, the Chief Pretrial Services Officer (or the Chief Probation Officer) will file an FBI Disposition Form R-84 so that the record will indicate successful completion/charges dropped.

Breach of Agreement. Upon breach of conditions of the Agreement by the divertee, the Chief Pretrial Services Officer (or the Chief Probation Officer) will so inform the U.S. Attorney, who, in his/her discretion, may initiate prosecution. When prosecution is resumed, the U.S. Attorney must furnish the offender with notice.

The decision to terminate an individual from continuing to participate in pretrial diversion based upon breach of conditions rests exclusively with the U.S. Attorney, with advice from either the Chief Pretrial Services Officer or the Chief Probation Officer.

at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00712.htm

My apologies for not verifying before posting.:mad:
 
so ya are saying a fed DA cannot decline to prosecute once the grand jury has returned a indictment?? he has no discretion??

its always been my understanding a DA can do pretty much as he pleases as far as what cases he prosecutes.

i have 2 degrees in CJ and need 6 hours for my MA FWIW.

and again, it doesnt matter to me,

where do ya live/practice, in TX?

As for the rest: I did not say say that a AUSA cannot decline to prosecute, I was speaking to the specifics of pre-trial diversion which you brought up and which you were correct and I was wrong.

A DA has wide discretion but it is not boundless, it is constrained by the Constitution, case law, procedures, etc...

I'm sure that you will understand that I value my privacy so I will restrict my comment to Saw 'em off and my apologies for posting incorrect info.

ETA: and it is important to point out that the above does not apply here since we do have the records and Spark posted those on the other thread.
 
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4419573&postcount=382

If you are talking of me sir you clearly are an idiot.......

Kind of why BFC is BFC........


:confused:


Wow, where to start:

On 2-20-07 you posted saying you “went and bought” your “first Strider folder.”

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4382624&postcount=1

I went and bought my first Strider folder. Wow, what a knife, built like a tank, sharp as a scalpel and able to do whatever I need a folder to do.

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest my strider folder gets a 9!!!!

Nice job once again Strider guys!!!!!:D

Yet on 12-27-05, you listed a “Strider SNG” was one of "your 5 Fave knives you use/own.”

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3451173&postcount=55

Mayo TNT
Strider SNG
Microtech Socom D/A
CKT Brend Model #2
Spyderco Ti ATR

On 1-29-05, you posted that you carried a Strider AR.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2895062&postcount=3

I carried a Socom D/A for years. Also an LUDT and a Strider AR

All worked superb for everyday LE duties.......

On 10-02-05, you stated that you had “a pair of Strider folders.”

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3300879&postcount=50

Does someone have a photo of the Manix?

I have been carrying an ATR for 10 Months n ow and it's done everything I have demanded it do. It has cut, pried, chopped, and even anchored down a tarp during a storm. It still looks and cuts like a champ.

having said that, I would be surprised to hear the Manix is more rugged.

I also have a pair of Strider folders. As has been said countless times they are hard core and bad to the bone, high speed tools. If/ when I go to hell I will make damn sure I have a Strider clipped to my pocket!!!

But for now it's the ATR, it's sleeker, prettier, costs less and carries superbly.

Show me a Manix, please...........................

Oh, and I guess on 6-10-2002, you had a Strider GB.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1702973&postcount=7

I do not have the kind of knowledge to post a review other than to say how great or how not-so-great a knife works for me so I have never done a review. I also do not have alot of customs that have not been reviewed at one time or another.
I did just get a Gregg lighfoot 460 in trade last week and it is one hell of a knife. Still a little tight to open, but I am putting it through it some hard core use and this knife is a serious user. Yesterday I helped my sister-in-Law plant some trees and cut alot of burlap and had to cut with my hands coated with dirt. The knife is amazing. The fit and finish is first rate, the edge is perfection and Gregg put a beautiful hand-rubbed satin finish on BG-42 steel. The bolsters are CF and of course the knife has my favorite color G-10. I also have an ATROX [Reif/Pirela], a STRIDER GB, an Emerson commander, A Socom Elite and a Talonite Camillus EDC in my user rotation, but I cannot see any reason to not carry this new lightfoot. My only complaint is that it could open just a wee bit smoother, but I am sure it will "break in" or I will ask gregg to tune it up. What a gorgeous knife. here is a photo:


Do I really need to continue? Yeah, I’m clearly an “idiot.”:rolleyes:

3G
 
Well Toad, I've been telling people it ain't like tv. Just like in civil trials, more than 90% of criminal cases are plead out (settled in civil law terms). If you look at my posts in the other thread you'll see I posted a bunch of links to federal sentencing guidelines, the US atty's manuals, etc... What the thing that has frustrated me the most is that most of the posters have not even read Spark's info totally.

And what made me jump on Ira for the posts about him as a LEO being involved in pleas himself is that your experience- barely speaking to prosecutors- is the norm. I hate to break it to people but many prosecutors look down on LEO's and they would very rarely be consulting with LEO's on legal issues. You catch them and then they prosecute and you are a witness and that is all. But just looking over his trial info, I think that you'll see it is straightforward and there is nothing mystical there- just everyday stuff.


Then you sir have never practiced in NH!!!!

In State Courts, the Cops can be the Prosecutor:D

But that have never been my claim. I simply have been involved in a few really nifty pleas where Sentencing guidelines meant nothing. Chalk it up to smart lawyers.

And for the record, I will say it one more time, the evidence Spark presented is overwhelming even for a small Town copper like me. It does not however change the fact that whether I am given or paid for a used Strider the money does not support Mick. The guy that bought it first did that. I just supported a great bud who is an ILPO in Mosul or Tal afar.

Oh, and I love the death penalty:D
 
Back
Top