It would be interesting to know what felonies Mr. Strickland is charged with.  Also what the applicable statute law is re: this situation in that jurisdiction.  One thing is certain - Mr. Strickland has approximately zero tactical awareness.  He let a person flank him and get close enough to disarm him - actually being touched before he reacted.      This and his actions after drawing his weapon give me the idea that his training is minimal at best.   He appears to be unwilling to part with his camera gear - even briefly - for any reason.      It appears to me that Mr. Strickland went into a potentially dangerous situation woefully unprepared to deal with the possibility of a hostile encounter.  It is something he already has experienced if his friend is to be believed.  It seems to me that his "friend" should have accompanied him and acted as either a cameraman or as an extra pair of eyes and/or a guard in the event it proved necessary.   I guess the video is nice but ultimately not as helpful as someone to watch your back.   

I wish him well but if he doesn't learn some "street smarts"  his career as a freelance journalist may very well be a short one. 

I guess my comments go more to the man's lack of common sense than anything else.  He apparently went into that situation alone and with his hands full of equipment he would not put down even when he feared for his safety.       There is probably a considerable amount of interaction we are not seeing that preceded the video clip you posted.  Was he there simply to film the proceedings or to interact with and/or interview the participants? Apparently he does a fair amount of this kind of thing so was he known to some or all the rally participants?

We don't know the answer to that AFAIK but anyone who has ever seen any of these types of gatherings has to understand that a white guy, alone, with a video camera is going to be in for his share of "attention" .   

There is an old saying:  "Discretion is the better part of valor."   Paraphrased from Shakespeare's King Henry the IV, I believe, but a valid consideration in this instance.   Did he have the right to be where he was doing what he was doing?  Yup.  Do you have the right to stand on top of a hill in during a thunderstorm holding a metal rod up toward the sky?  Yup.   Having the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to go do it. 

This is, supposedly, a list of the charges:  http://whoismichaelstrickland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Screenshot-7816-332-PM-3.jpeg

Original post for the above:  http://whoismichaelstrickland.com/michael-strickland-gets-a-taste-of-his-own-medicine/

This article implies he was the aggressor:  http://www.opb.org/news/article/gun-pulled-black-lives-matter-portland-charges-michael-strickland/

It is not as simple as it looks.

I am not taking a position on the subject of guilt or no.  Still, in my experience the first reports are rarely complete and often wrong.  OTOH, I also know that mobs can go from chin-wagging to violence very quickly so I am inclined to cut him some slack.

He's a White legal licensed CCW resident of Oregon which makes him an enemy of the system. They don't like whitey being defiant and patriotic, especially in liberal Portland.

Unlawful use of a weapon??? How was it unlawful to defend yourself by showing you are armed (albeit by direct aiming)?
Menacing is possibly applicable here, but the felonies are pure BS.

The real and ulterior motive imo is they want to strip him of his gun rights and leave him defenseless.

For all that I did warn him online about a year and a half ago to be careful and not become a target.