Uploaded December 2018 | Updated September 2026, 2 hours ago
Transcript of Rasmussen's Testimony: scribd.com/document/387170461/Officer-Ryan-Rasmussen-Testimony
Story of Ryan Rasmussen attacked on MAX platform: oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2012/06/police_gresham_officer_assault.html
Judge Thomas Ryan's verdict in the State of Oregon vs Michael Strickland case establishes that it is legal for a mob of masked thugs to physically attack people in the street, including politicians, judges, district attorneys, journalists, activists, and even police officers.
Serving as the state's ambush expert witness on use of force and firearms tactics, Gresham police officer Ryan Rasmussen testified as to what police officers are trained and not trained to do in regards to using firearms. One of the things that he says is that police officers are not trained to draw their firearm, point the firearm at a subject, and NOT shoot. Along with Multnomah county deputy district attorneys Kate Molina and Todd Jackson, they make the case that if a police officer draws, they are only justified in drawing if they shoot. According to the ruling in my case, if the police officer doesn't shoot in that situation, then the officer has committed the crimes of Unlawful Use Of A Weapon and Menacing against the subject.
Furthermore, as adjudicated in State v Oliphant (Wood), a person is justified in defending themselves against what they "reasonably believe" is unlawful physical force being used against them by police. Thus, if a police officer draws their firearm on you, doesn't shoot, you have the legal authority to use physical force against that officer in defense of yourself or a bystander. Since drawing a firearm is use of deadly force, one is typically justified in using the next level of force above that which an assailant is using. In a roundabout way, you can legally shoot a police officer if the officer is drawing their firearm, pointing it at a person, and not shooting the person.
Judge Ryan ruled that my statements to detectives on the evening of the incident in question are inadmissible, in large part because they claim those statements are a "historical account" of what had happened, and not relevant to my mindset. Police agencies in Oregon have what's known as the 48 Hour Rule, where an officer in a shooting or other incident which calls for an internal investigation has to have 48 hours notice before an investigator can interview them. Applying the same standard in my case, if statements I make 30 minutes to 4 hours after the incident are ruled to be irrelevant and not admissible, then certainly what someone says 48 hours after an incident are even less relevant and less admissible.
The prosecutors were arguing my prior knowledge of Kerensa's violent and threatening behavior are not relevant to the way I handled myself when I defended myself against him. So, once again, applying that same standard to police, if a police officer has prior knowledge of a subject's violent tendencies, that is irrelevant as to how the officer conducts any contact with that person.
Judge Ryan ruled that a prior incident where I had two video cameras stolen from me and I was bodyslammed onto the pavement, suffering debilitating injury, is irrelevant and not admissible in regards to the incident that took place 16 months later. Again, applying that same standard, a police officer's own, personal experiences would be irrelevant with respect as to how that officer behaves, unless it is specifically how officers are trained.
All of this combined puts law enforcement officers at risk of being assaulted, shot, or killed in the line of duty, and it could even be a legal killing of an officer.
In their quest to throw the book at me, these people have inadvertently screwed every law enforcement officer in Oregon.
My statements in this video and in this description aren't necessarily what I think is right or wrong, or should be legal or illegal, or how someone should react in different circumstances. I am merely explaining how judges have ruled, what district attorneys have argued for and against in court, and what a firearms and use of force expert have testified to. I feel that it's important that the public be aware of how certain laws are interpreted, as I don't want to see anyone have to experience what I've gone through over the last 2 1/2 years.
Transcript of Rasmussen's Testimony: scribd.com/document/387170461/Officer-Ryan-Rasmussen-Testimony
Story of Ryan Rasmussen attacked on MAX platform: oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2012/06/police_gresham_officer_assault.html
Judge Thomas Ryan's verdict in the State of Oregon vs Michael Strickland case establishes that it is legal for a mob of masked thugs to physically attack people in the street, including politicians, judges, district attorneys, journalists, activists, and even police officers.
Serving as the state's ambush expert witness on use of force and firearms tactics, Gresham police officer Ryan Rasmussen testified as to what police officers are trained and not trained to do in regards to using firearms. One of the things that he says is that police officers are not trained to draw their firearm, point the firearm at a subject, and NOT shoot. Along with Multnomah county deputy district attorneys Kate Molina and Todd Jackson, they make the case that if a police officer draws, they are only justified in drawing if they shoot. According to the ruling in my case, if the police officer doesn't shoot in that situation, then the officer has committed the crimes of Unlawful Use Of A Weapon and Menacing against the subject.
Furthermore, as adjudicated in State v Oliphant (Wood), a person is justified in defending themselves against what they "reasonably believe" is unlawful physical force being used against them by police. Thus, if a police officer draws their firearm on you, doesn't shoot, you have the legal authority to use physical force against that officer in defense of yourself or a bystander. Since drawing a firearm is use of deadly force, one is typically justified in using the next level of force above that which an assailant is using. In a roundabout way, you can legally shoot a police officer if the officer is drawing their firearm, pointing it at a person, and not shooting the person.
Judge Ryan ruled that my statements to detectives on the evening of the incident in question are inadmissible, in large part because they claim those statements are a "historical account" of what had happened, and not relevant to my mindset. Police agencies in Oregon have what's known as the 48 Hour Rule, where an officer in a shooting or other incident which calls for an internal investigation has to have 48 hours notice before an investigator can interview them. Applying the same standard in my case, if statements I make 30 minutes to 4 hours after the incident are ruled to be irrelevant and not admissible, then certainly what someone says 48 hours after an incident are even less relevant and less admissible.
The prosecutors were arguing my prior knowledge of Kerensa's violent and threatening behavior are not relevant to the way I handled myself when I defended myself against him. So, once again, applying that same standard to police, if a police officer has prior knowledge of a subject's violent tendencies, that is irrelevant as to how the officer conducts any contact with that person.
Judge Ryan ruled that a prior incident where I had two video cameras stolen from me and I was bodyslammed onto the pavement, suffering debilitating injury, is irrelevant and not admissible in regards to the incident that took place 16 months later. Again, applying that same standard, a police officer's own, personal experiences would be irrelevant with respect as to how that officer behaves, unless it is specifically how officers are trained.
All of this combined puts law enforcement officers at risk of being assaulted, shot, or killed in the line of duty, and it could even be a legal killing of an officer.
In their quest to throw the book at me, these people have inadvertently screwed every law enforcement officer in Oregon.
My statements in this video and in this description aren't necessarily what I think is right or wrong, or should be legal or illegal, or how someone should react in different circumstances. I am merely explaining how judges have ruled, what district attorneys have argued for and against in court, and what a firearms and use of force expert have testified to. I feel that it's important that the public be aware of how certain laws are interpreted, as I don't want to see anyone have to experience what I've gone through over the last 2 1/2 years.
