Suspect Says Hunters Shot at Him First

[papau]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=6&u=/ap/20041123/ap_on_re_us/hunters_shot

Suspect Says Hunters Shot at Him First

By ROBERT IMRIE, Associated Press Writer

HAYWARD, Wis. - A man suspected in the killings of six hunters told investigators he began firing after he was shot at first and some of the victims called him racially derogatory names, according to documents filed Tuesday.

<snip>A hunter approached Vang to tell him he was on private property, and Vang started to leave as other hunters approached, the statement said. Vang said the hunters surrounded him, and some started calling him racial slurs.

Vang said he started walking away but looked back to see the first hunter point his rifle at him and then fire a shot that hit the ground 30 to 40 feet behind him, the statement said.

That's when Vang told investigators he started firing at the group, and some fell to the ground and others tried to run away, according to the statement. <snip>

[candy]

1. He killed 5 people---what the hell does race have to do with it?

[histohoney]

3. 6

people.

[candy]

Good Lord,six,I had no news on all day---thanks. n/t

[BUSHOUT]

61. That sounds like bush "moral clarity".

If they were directing racial slurs or insults at him, then that's part of the story. It's part of the crime.

The rightwing believes in it's superiority to others - for racial reasons or otherwise. If you've ever spent any time at a conservative forum and attempted to make the case for tollerance of Muslims you know this. I did so and was called everything under the book...."diaper-head", "sand-nigger", ect ect.
And all I had done was try to point out that there are over a Billion Muslims on the planet and they do not support terrorism.

When terrorism happens, we're told not to even CONSIDER the reasons. That's as big a pile of bullshit as not considering what provoked this man to shoot at these people.

Nothing excuses killing, but it's wrong not to look at the motives.
If they were using racial slurs against the man, then race has a lot to do with it.

[hcashew]

65. its a strange, ironic act

Hunters being the hunted...

[msgadget]

131. It matters that he felt threatened as a lone individual against a group.

However, I had to edit after reading the rest of the article and it seems he's got a little history as a gun waver. He didn't run away though or resist arrest. He could very well have been fired upon first and harassed but, no, there's no excuse for shooting those coming to the aid of the fallen.

[jdj]

206. I can just see the deer standing around high-fiving each other after

watching this.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zynx]

211. How about someone calls you less than human

And kills you? Would you enjoy that?

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

231. Disclaimer: pokercat999's views do not represent the greater DU community

x(

Welcome to DU. Good luck.

[martinolich]

269. .....Probably pokercat999.!

[hughee99]

256. Seriously...

"Authorities have said there was only one gun among the eight hunters."

So after shooting the man with the gun, he then shot at least 5 more unarmed people. But that's okay, because they were hunters?

"According to Vang's story, he got lost while hunting on public land and ended up in the vacant tree stand"

Apparently Vang was a hunter too... you have a weird concept of Karma.

on edit: Sorry, I didn't realize that pokercat was a hit and run newbie. I'm sorry that I even bothered to respond to this crap.

pokercat, welcome to DU and good luck. I think you're going to need it.

[pokercat999]

277. Thank you for the welcome and wish of luck

but they're only electrons on a screen, so I have no fear....kinda makes you think though.

I didn't even read the story, I don't care about the details, he was a hunter out to do murder, weather he killed one species or another matters not, to me they are all the same, murder is murder. That the state sells a license to do murder is a crime also, why not just open up the gladiator rings again like in ancient Rome? It may be where we are headed anyway. Sorry but the HUMAN BEINGS understand what I'm saying, but you homosapiens ????

[Name removed]

272. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

268. Could have a self-defense claim

if his version of events turns out to be true.

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

283. IG, did you read his statement to police?

there's NO WAY he has a self-defense claim. It was cold-blooded premeditated murder.

[okieinpain]

306. what do you mean by the race part.

[Mistress Quickly]

2. I don't care

he killed those who came to help the wounded, like the guys daughter, who was unarmed.

He shoulda just kept on walking, even if it was backwards, facing them. When everyone at the fight has guns, no one wins.

The whole thing just makes me sick. I think I read somewhere he had a history of spousal abuse where the cops had to come to his house a few times, after he threatened to shoot his wife.

Let me see if I can find the story.

on edit: found this:

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6898741

snip>>
Vang had no criminal record though police in Minneapolis where he once lived said they were called to his home in 2001 after he allegedly threatened his family. No charges were filed in that incident.

___________________________________________________
And this:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking-News/Sixth-deer-hunter-dies-after-shooting/2004/11/24/1101219571215.html?oneclick=true

snip>>>
Minneapolis police said they arrested Vang on Christmas Eve 2001 after he waved a gun and threatened to kill his wife.

No charge was brought because she didn't cooperate with authorities, spokesman Ron Reier said.

Police in St Paul said there had been two domestic violence calls to his home in the past year, but both were resolved without incident.

[ohiosmith]

4. Here.

Minneapolis police said they arrested Chai Vang on Christmas Eve 2001 after he waved a gun and threatened to kill his wife. No charge was filed because she didn't cooperate with authorities, spokesman Ron Reier said. St. Paul police said there had been two domestic violence calls to his home in the past year, but both were resolved without incident.

[Mistress Quickly]

9. thanks

and I found another, I edited my post above.

:hi:

[yardwork]

129. He sounds like he is crazy. It's too bad he had that gun.

It's too bad he wasn't locked up for the previous "domestic" disputes. Sounds like authorities had clear warnings that this guy was dangerous, but he was allowed to have that gun and wander around free and now he's a mass murderer.

[Mistress Quickly]

137. Wasn't the mother

who cut her daughter's arm off previously investigated and then cleared?

Just popped in my head. Doesn't this seem to happen a lot? As soon as the Dept of Family and Children Services closes a case, the person flips and does something crazy?

This question isn't directed at you, just wondering aloud.

[wicket]

18. I believe there was only 1 gun between the other hunters

This guy is nothing more than a cold blooded killer :grr:

[LiberalFighter]

209. 1 gun among the 8

[neohippie]

238. So 8 people are hunting on private land and they all only have 1 gun

Doesn't that seem suspect too? I mean people who hunt together usually all don't share a single gun.

Nobody waited too long in chosing sides here.

I think it is impossible to know what really happened, but somehow I doubt that some guy just wandered into the woods to kill some nature lovers and their one hunter friend.

[R Hickey]

278. They left the guns at the cabin

I can see you're not much of a crime sluth.

[StClone]

WI shooting is an Extreme: The stuff that goes on in the woods.

I have an acquaintance that has been cited three times with assault due to dispute over a big buck, hunters trespassing and drunken stupidity in the past two years.

Call a local police station in rural America and ask about hunting violence and I think you'll be surprised what you hear.

[Mistress Quickly]

29. In Georgia

they just get high and arrested for possession.

[neohippie]

240. how do we know who was armed and unarmed?

How do we know who is telling the truth here if anyone is?

[atreides1]

5. The Downside

Unfortunately for Mr. Vang he left survivors, and if the crime scene investigators don't find any evidence to back his story, he's done.

[DoNotRefill]

17. If the victims were shot from behind....

he's toast.

[Walt Starr]

6. So he will try to use the sef defense defense

:eyes:

I don't think it'll work.

[Goathead]

7. So, he shot eight people and six died?

How is it that he got away unscathed when everyone there had a gun. This story is really weird, something out of 'Deliverance' or something.

[DoNotRefill]

15. Goathead, reports are that only 1 of the 8 people was armed.

eom

[wicket]

20. That's what I've heard too

n/t

[mulethree]

53. And then a busload of army recruiters descended on his neighborhood n/t

[impe]

130. Deliverance the Sequel

What were the other hunters using to hunt with or were they sharing the 1 gun.

[henslee]

8. I do my best to avoid going anywhere near lots of people with guns. I was

once dragged to an indoor shooting range. Couldnt enjoy myself. I kept imagining what would happen if someone freaked out and started shooting the place up. I knew that as soon as I stepped in there, the odds of me getting shot dramatically increased. I'd rather see a movie.

[DoNotRefill]

10. Just because he said something happened....

doesn't mean it happened.

The reports from the police indicate that he tracked people down to kill them, and that they were mostly unarmed. When one of the victims called for help, he shot the people who came to help.

We need to see what the forensics uncover before we draw any conclusions. But given what has actually been reported (8 people shot, only one gun between them) I can't see a scenario that would NOT involve a gross overreaction on the part of the shooter. Self-defense isn't going to fly.

[Roon]

16. I bet the survivors

will think twice about calling people racist names again.

[DoNotRefill]

23. do you have ANY proof that this happened....

other than the obviously self-serving statement of a guy who apparently just killed 5-6 UNARMED people?

[Roon]

40. Like I said

I believe the shooter when he said that they called him racist names. Gun-toting, deer slayers, aren't known for their good manners.

[kslib]

123. Thanks for the gross generalization

My dad is a "gun-toting, deer slayer" democrat, who chooses to know that the meat our family eats all year is hunted and not inhumanly treated in some meat factory. These are people; they were shot. Even if they did call the guy names (which they shouldn't do!), is that a reason to take someone's life; to take away someone's husband or father?

[Roon]

194. No, it's not a reason to take someone's life

but you can't go around calling people hateful/racist names and expect people to take it.

[Zynx]

160. You've obviously never been hunting.

Most hunters are very decent people. Sure, some are loudmouth rednecks, but to classify all that way is bigoted on your part.

[LisaL]

203. And this guy wasn't a gun-tooting deer slayer?

He was on private property and he killed 6 people after they asked him to leave because he had no right to be there.
If they were shooting at him, he would be dead because there were a lot more of them and he was one person. I am sorry, but it makes no sense for him to kill 6 people if those people were shooting at him.
The gun laws in this country are a joke. This guy was arrested for threatening to shoot his own wife, yet it's perfectly legal for him to have guns. Go figure!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

215. Would it have been alright if they were ARMED?

[beevul]

237. Hard to say...possibly...

From the "probable cause statement and judicial determination"

"Vang stated that Vang observed 3 other subjects coming on an ATV. Vang stated that Vang then turned his reversible coat from orange to camo. Vang stated that he also reloaded his magazine with 5 or 6 bullets. Vang stated that Vang did not shoot at these men because they had guns with them."

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shooting1123.pdf

It might have been less bloody.

Maybe.

Until we know all the facts (will we ever?), theres no telling for sure.

Those who were running, probably wouldn't have been, if armed.

I know I wouldn't have.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

239. Oh Jeezus, are you serious?

[beevul]

246. "Vang stated that Vang did not shoot at these men because ...

they had guns with them"

That BEGS the question...

Might he have declined to shoot at the unarmed folks, had they BEEN armed?

You tell me.

On edit: Could the unarmed folks who were killed have been any more DEAD if they had been armed?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

249. Sorry, I'm of that odd ilk that believes killing people is wrong.

He bagged his limit that day.

[beevul]

255. I also believe killing is wrong...

until my or my familys life is threatened.

At that point, Preservation and survival become my first order of business.



I respect your view however.

[madison2000]

43. Even if they did use racist slurs

how does that possibly justify his response of shooting eight people?
You don't get to claim self-defense against words!
And I wouldn't put too much credibility in his story, you can make up anything when you've permanently silenced everyone else who was there.

[tedzbear]

66. We will have to wait for the two missing hunters who were with the killer.

If he is a killer. I don't trust the story of the other 6 hunters. They could have been all carrying guns and made up the story of only one of them being armed.

Just because the guy has a history of spousal abuse does not mean his story is a lie.

Both parties in this tragedy sound like they acted rashly. This reminds me of the basketball game fight. Wasn't that a racist fight too?

IMHO the 51% who voted for * are closet racists and these incidents point to a deep social unrest in our country which is boiling dangerously.

edit: sp

[madison2000]

99. The killer was alone

according to every story I've heard. He ended up with two other hunters who did not know what he had done. But I don't think there will be any new witnesses.

In the basketball game fight no one got killed.

And don't people who hunt usually carry guns?

[DoNotRefill]

143. Uhhh....Tedzbear....I think you're missing something....

most of them died at the scene. Those that didn't were seriously wounded. I think they had other things on their minds than trying to come up with a story about how all of them got shot. The "only one was armed" bit came from the police on the scene. It didn't come from the victims, most of whom will never be able to tell their side of what happened, because they're DEAD.

[BUSHOUT]

102. It doesn't "justify" it. Who says it would? It is provocation though.

In many places, provocation is considered as a defence.

If I call your mother a whore and tell you a fucked her with a beer bottle last night, and you hit me....you can bet what I said will come up in court and will be part of your defence.

[0007]

185. Duh?

[R Hickey]

279. I believe you're wrong.

I believe this will result in an increased risk for any Hmong who may travel into rural Northern Wisconsin during deer season.

This Hmong-gun-nut has done more to hurt his fellow Hmong deer-hunters than anything else.

The people who work for me, (Wisconsin construction workers who hunt), were talking about the shooting all day, and what they might do if they encountered any Hmong in their tree stands.

Wisconsin hunters are quite territorial, and if I was a Hmong, I would think twice before entering the woods in these parts anymore, not without body armour.

[jobycom]

25. Keep in mind your source

The same media that convinced 51% of Americans to vote for Bush is less than reliable. They don't always write stories based on facts, they write them based on drama.

Also, the victims here may have been the people taunting him, which makes them less reliable.

Frankly, I don't buy his story, but I'll leave room for doubt.

[DoNotRefill]

28. People generally don't taunt other people who have guns

in their hands. Just like people generally don't rob people with guns in their hands.

[jobycom]

46. I'll move to your world, it's a lot neater than mine

That's just a silly argument. You've never been around guns much, or else you've never been hunting. Mob mentality can take over even if the other guy is armed.

There is a feeling when you're hunting, too, that the other guy won't shoot at you. I lost a friend when that was proven wrong as a teenager. A group of people were out hunting, two guys started fighting, and they pointed guns. My friend stepped between them, and one of them shot him. He had no fear of their guns, and he died because of it. It happens, and it happens a lot.

[DoNotRefill]

49. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!

"You've never been around guns much, or else you've never been hunting. Mob mentality can take over even if the other guy is armed."


Hehehehehehehehheehehehehehe!!!!!! :)

OK, Jobycom....whatever you say.... :)

[jobycom]

52. That's an admission I'm right, then, eh?

I mean, if you had something to counter that, you'd have countered it.

[DoNotRefill]

58. Joby, what happens when you assume?

Go down to the Gungeon and ask if I've been around guns.

Your statement was so amusingly preposterous that I just had to laugh. I've been around guns my entire life, and my gun collection is worth more than my house and cars together.

I've met very few real assholes in the gun culture. People I disagree with politically? Tons of them. Real assholes? Very rare.

[jobycom]

70. I don't care what you post in the gungeon, I'm telling you

If you claim a group of hunters wouldn't start taunting some little Laotian guy just because he had a gun, you've not been around guns, or if you have, you are deliberately blinding yourself. If you have been around guns and hunting all your life (and I could care less how big your gun collection is, anyone can buy guns), then you know I'm right.

As I said in my first post on this, it's rare in the hunting culture for a hunter to point a gun at someone, because it's ingrained from the earliest age that you don't do that. But it happens. Not all hunters are trained well. Some start when they are older, never learn what they should. Some are these gun show goofballs who think they know guns because they've bought a bunch of them. But if you've grown up in a genuine gun and hunting culture, where people use guns and don't just buy them to shoot targets for fun, then you know what I'm talking about. if you haven't, you don't, and now amount of goofy-ass laughing and is going to change that.

[DoNotRefill]

80. And I'm telling you....

that in my experience, you're wrong.

We can compare credentials if you insist, but frankly, that'd be absurd IMHO.

[jayfish]

57. Have You Ever Been Hunting...

with friends on their property? I can't tell you how many times I have heard property owners who hunt on their property say that if they find someone hunting there(without explicit permission) they will just shoot first and ask questions later. Hunters are fiercely territorial that way.

Jay

[DoNotRefill]

62. How many people....

are actually shot in that kind of scenario each year?

There's a big difference between talking and doing.

[jobycom]

75. I know more people who have died from gunshots than from car accidents

So I guess it depends on where you live. Where I grew up in Mississippi, we lost at least one friend a year from guns accidents, usually involving hunting. They all got labeled as accidents, but most weren't.

[DoNotRefill]

77. Well....

for the last year I've seen figures for, there were some 38,000 people killed in car accidents, and fewer than 900 killed in firearms accidents nation-wide.

[jayfish]

85. Could You Source Those Numbers.

Not that I don't believe you, I just need to see them for myself. If you can't, no big deal. For the record I am anti-gun control.

Jay

[DoNotRefill]

90. the car fatality numbers are off the top of my head....

and the accident numbers are from WISQUARS.

Go to: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

In report option 1, enter "unintentional".

In report option 2, click on "firearms".

Hit "submit request", and it'll show that in 2001, there were 802 unintentional firearms deaths in the entire US, for a crude rate of 0.28 per 100K, and an age adjusted rate of 0.30 per 100K.

[jobycom]

97. 29,573 firearm deaths

That's intentional and non-intentional.

[DoNotRefill]

100. right.

with suicide comprising around 2/3 of that number, homicide around 1/3 of that number, and accidents a tiny fraction of that.

[jobycom]

125. Did i say accidental gun deaths?

I said I knew more people who died from guns than from auto accidents. You tried to call me a liar by citing bogus numbers.

[DoNotRefill]

145. In post 75, you said:

"They all got labeled as accidents, but most weren't."

OK, so if they were labelled as accidents, they'd show up in the "accident" category, even if they were not accidents, right? And in the "accident" category, in 2001, there were 802 deaths that were labelled as being accidents nation-wide.

I'm quoting numbers from the CDC. How, exactly, are they "bogus"? And I have NOT called you a liar. I think you're just misinformed.

[jobycom]

94. A lot more people own cars

But where I came from, everyone owned cars and guns. That evened out the numbers.

[DoNotRefill]

96. when you say "a lot more people own cars"....

what kind of ratio are you talking? 50 car owners for every gun owner? Give us a ballpark.

[jobycom]

122. I don't have any figures-- you doubt that's true?

By the way, your ratio is a bit biased. Total gun deaths were over 29,000 on te web page you cited, compared to 38,000 (going off your number, I didn't look that up) for auto deaths. If a hunter shoots someone for hunting on their property that's not an accidental death. And since this thread is related to the ratio of people I know who were killed by cars vs guns, whether the death was accidental or deliberate makes no difference.

This is what I always get arguing with gun people. They say things like you've said all up and down this thread. "I know guns." "Know one taunts or robs an armed man." Etc. But when you cite evidence, it's misleading or wrong, and when you don't cite evidence, you just say "Trust me, I'm right" or you break out with the ridicule card without backing up what you say.

You're wrong. you are trying to defend guns, not look at the facts, and so your facts and your logic is just goofy. You've all but called me a liar or an idiot up and down this thread. You're the one citing bad evidence, you're the one twisting facts to suit you, you're the one who won't admit the possibility of any interpretation you don't want to be true. But I'm supposed to just take your word on it that you know guns and everything about anyone who owns them? Sorry, I don't trust your reasoning.

Gotta get back to work. That's all for me today. Tear me apart at your leisure.

I wasn't lying,

[DoNotRefill]

154. Wow. I guess I touched a nerve there.

I didn't mean to upset you by pointing out the gaping holes in your argument.

Here are some facts for you. There are currently something like 300 MILLION guns in the US. That's one for every man, woman, and child, most likely with some left over. I'm pretty sure that number is larger than the number of cars in the US. There are somewhere between 80 to 100 million legal gun owners in the US. So when you say that there are a lot more cars than guns or car owners than gun owners, I have to wonder what kind of basis you have for that. Let's say that there are 200 million car owners out of a total population of between 285 and 300 million people. There's a difference, but it's not a HUGE difference when expressed in a ratio.

We were talking about ACCIDENTAL gun deaths (or gun deaths that were murder, but due to "good old boy" culture were classified as accidents), which is why I quoted the ACCIDENTAL gun death rate. You seem to think that in order to discuss accidental gun deaths, we need to include homicide and deliberate suicide. Why, I don't understand.

[jayfish]

79. I Don't Know The Answer To That Question.

From the sound of your response I will deduce that you have heard this before. Now, just for the sake of discussion, lets throw in several hours back at camp consuming copious amounts of alcohol (not in evidence) combined with heroic stories of the hunt and you have a recipe for this disaster. Also, just because none of the other victims had weapons visible does not mean they could not have been carrying side-arms. I'd be willing to bet that (if you are a hunter) that you carry a side-arm on the hunt as well. If you look at it from the shooters perspective, he had every reason to suspect his life was in danger. I'll give both sides the benefit of the doubt because I honestly don't know what happened out there.

Jay

[DoNotRefill]

82. you have evidence....

that the people had been drinking? Cite, please.

[jayfish]

87. No I'm Just Giving...

a general description of all the hunters I have ever known in my life. I did say "for the sake of discussion". They don't call it "beer-camp" for nothing.

Jay

[DoNotRefill]

92. in every hunting camp I've ever been in....

drinking only took place after all weapons were secured.

[jayfish]

124. Secured By Whom?

How long did it take for you to get at them if you needed to?

Jay

[DoNotRefill]

157. We normally locked them in their cases...

and depending on where the camp was and the nature of the camp, in a car trunk if it was available. This was done for two reasons: First, because booze and guns don't mix, and second, because I've never met a tent that didn't leak or condense moisture inside of it, which is very bad for the gun finish.

[Scout]

190. in the only hunting cabin I've ever been in...

the guns must be left in the rack outside on the porch if they are LOADED ... that's the only rule besides the regular gun safety ones.

Didn't matter about the alcohol, as long as the loaded guns stayed outside, you could drink or not as you chose.

[neohippie]

235. no one has evidence yet, everyone seems to know what happened

Boths sides of this story have jumped to conclusions

[jobycom]

71. Exactly. nt./

[tom II]

54. re: people do not taunt people with guns

EXACTLY!

I have hunted for 40 years. I have NEVER had an incident where someone threatened me with a firearm, even when I was accidently trespassing. People just ask you to leave. Now I will add that the Hmong in Minnesota need to work on obeying the laws. They are constantly getting ticketed for over limits on fish, breaking the hunting laws, etc. The hunting community does not care what race you are as long as you hunt and fish within the laws.

[Roon]

11. I believe him

I also believe that the hunters took a potshot at him. Doesn't justify killing 6 of them though.

[DoNotRefill]

19. What do you base your belief in him on?

the guy was obviously mentally unbalanced.

[Roon]

44. Unbalanced enough

to go beserk when someone attacks his race and takes a potshot at him? That kind of unbalanced?

[DoNotRefill]

47. unbalanced enough to shoot 7 unarmed people...

when they were running away. THAT kind of unbalanced.

[Roon]

50. Now you're getting it! eom

[jayfish]

37. Same Here.

That being said I will withhold judgment until the entire story has been told. After all, it's not like we have a videotape of the incident or anything.

Jay

[neohippie]

233. Finally a sensible post

I knew when I saw this thread there would be a lot of opinion and not very much fact.


The story is barely out, the investigation is just starting and people are lining up on both sides of the fence racing to justice before we even know what actually happened.

On NPR today I heard an interview with some one local to that area who was talking about the how there has been tension in the woods for years between the people who consider themselves locals, funny they're not American Indian, and the immigrants from Vietnam. The locals it seems don't like the foreigners hunting on the white man's land, and there have been provocations and incidents in the past.

The problems is that private lands that border the national forest and other public lands, are not always clearly marked.

This guy claims that he was first insulted, slurrd and thought he was going to die and he was then shot at, and he only shot to defend himself. Since none of us were there and no one has really heard from the other side in this story how is it that so many people here can be so certain of what happened.

I don't know what happened but my interest is peaked.


Imagine if you were a Hmong refugee from Laos, and you are hunting in the woods, and then some people come up and tell you that they can kill you because it's their property and start demeaning you with racial slurs, and then call for back up on their radios, say they take a shot at you because instead of moving toward them when they order you to, you are scared and move away from them, they shoot, you shoot, maybe you hit somebody, more shots are fired, maybe you hit another person, they might be yards apart because they were chasing you... so maybe you keep running, then you hear people on ATVs or four runners, and you think they are also chasing you, who knows when the shots stopped being fired. Maybe the whole incident was acted out in self defense, maybe not? How do we know?


Imagine you are a Hmong refugee from Laos and for years the locals have taunted you and your people about hunting on their lands, insulting other people and you are fed up about it. Maybe you take an assault rifle into the words and pretend your hunting, purposefully trespassing onto private land hoping to stir up some trouble, and maybe a chance to kill someone and then try and cover your motive with a self defense story, who here thinks that they know what really happened?

How is it that we are so quick to rush to judgment. We only know what we have heard in the media, as respected as their reputation is on this board, I am shocked to see people here, at DU already certain of what must have occurred.

[DoNotRefill]

258. Based upon what Vang admitted to the police...

namely that he chased after unarmed people that were fleeing him, and repeatedly shot them in the back, there's no way in hell that it's self defense, even if you assume everything Vang said was 100% true, rather than being the ravings of a homicidal maniac who is trying to justify the indefensible.

[neohippie]

265. so there has never been a case of the police not telling the truth?

Well if the police said that he confessed? well of course, I still say we cannot decide what happened before we get more information.

[DoNotRefill]

284. I'm virtually positive...

that the statement the police got from Vang was at the minimum videotaped.

Remember, according to the affadavit, it was Vang, NOT the police, who requested the interview, and Vang was not in their custody when he requested it in writing, he was in the DOC's custody. They had to transfer him back to the police for the interview to take place, so they undoubtedly were able to set up properly for it. It's not like it was a spontaneous confession prior to Mirandization in the back of a squadcar. I'd be willing to bet $50 that the statement was not coerced, and is recorded, probably in several different mediums.

[KansDem]

101. Yeah...

I also believe that the hunters took a potshot at him.

Sounds like the ol' "Dance, Pardner!...Dance!" routine. Perhaps these people saw too many John Wayne movies...

[slackmaster]

217. I lean toward not buying his alibi

Just the kind of bullshit excuse someone who had just committed a crime and got caught would fabricate to try to form the foundation of a criminal defense.

If someone other than Vang shot first, it will come out in the wash.

[jobycom]

12. Well, that would change things. I have mixed feeling about it

First, I can't imagine the majority of hunters pointing a gun at someone, that's pretty ingrained in the hunting culture. It's not impossible, I had a friend killed when he stepped between a couple of drunk hunters and one shot him instead of the guy he was trying to shoot.

Second, if he was facing the guy with the rifle, how does he know where the bullet landed behind him? I guess maybe when he saw the rifle he turned back around and then heard the shot and saw where it hit, but if he was looking at the guy when the shot was fired, he didn't see where the bullet hit, which makes the whole story suspicious.

Third, a bunch of angry, maybe drunken, gunweilding, racist hunters would be pretty scary to face, whether they shot at him or not.

Sad.

[DoNotRefill]

22. Scary enough that even though 7 of them were unarmed...

to track them down and shoot them all in the back while they were trying to run away?

[jobycom]

If that's what happened...

People on both sides can lie. If he's facing a group of people with guns, and some are pointed at him, he could just open up, start shooting anything he sees. He'd hit some in the back, and some would be unarmed. If they were all taunting him, they might leave that part out.

Like I said, I have my doubts, but if I'm going to doubt one story, I'm going to doubt the other, too. I won't believe one just because I heard it first. Forensics will answer a lot of the questions. They may have, already, and I just don't know the story.

[DoNotRefill]

36. Well, I guess it depends on if you think the police were covering...

for the people or not. The police reports say that they were killed over a very large area, more than 100 yards, and that the shots were at close range, and the guy tracked them down to shoot them. That's not coming from the survivors, it's coming from the police.

They didn't leave anything out. They were DEAD. It's hard to question people who are dead. Based upon the crime scene evidence,the guy's got a shitload of 'splainin to do, and saying "they called me names" ain't gonna cut it.

[jobycom]

60. That's pretty convincing

My questions would be these: What was the spread of the bodies? How many were far away from him? How far? Is that 100 yards linear, spread out, what? Could they have run after being shot, then fallen? Who says he tracked them (were the police there, are they relying on witness testimony, are they making the assumption based on the body position, etc?)

Again, I don't buy the guy's story. But I won't throw it out until it's disproven.

As for "they called me names and shot at me," who knows whether that will cut it before a jury. He has only to prove he was in genuine fear for his life to make it self defense, even if not everyone he killed was a threat to him. If on the other hand he feared for his life, killed the threat, then went on to track them down, his defense gets shakier after the first or second death.

[DoNotRefill]

68. Wrong.

"He has only to prove he was in genuine fear for his life to make it self defense, even if not everyone he killed was a threat to him."

There's a "reasonable person" test in self-defense situations. I don't know of ANYBODY who would think his actions were reasonable. And it's categorically illegal to shoot unarmed people fleeing.

The police weren't relying on witness testimony, since most of the witnesses were in fact dead, and those that were not were severely injured (one of the three has since died). Also, he apparently reloaded, and expended ALL of his ammunition. The crime scene analysis will tell the story....where the shell-casings were found, et cetera.

I've spent a fair amount of time in front of juries, and there's no way in hell, again, based upon the information as reported, that it will be found to have been self-defense.

[jobycom]

81. My point exactly

"Based upon the information reported"

I believe that was my exact point all along, before your testosterone got all riled up. Remind me not to hunt around you. You shoot first and look at your target second, if you hunt like you post.

[jeanarrett]

63. Who said the victims were angry, drunken

or wielding guns? The media reports said just the opposite that there was only one gun between the 8 people shot at. And we don't know if it was the first group that had it or the one that came later on the ATVs.

[katsy]

13. ummm who let the awb sunset?

Wholesale killing with an assault rifle. Oh well.

[Mistress Quickly]

21. I don't think the gun he used

was covered by the AWB. In otherwords, he could've done it with the same weapon before the AWB expired, legally.

[DoNotRefill]

24. correct...

an SKS wasn't affected by the AWB.

[tom II]

35. AWB

The SKS that he used was never covered by the Assault Weapon Ban. It is nothing more than a cheaper semi automatic rifle barely legal for taking deer. The rifle is popular in the Hmong community in Minnesota because it is very cheap to buy & ammunition is not expensive for it. The Hmong decend from a long line of hunters.

Regardless, even any semi automatic expensive sporting rifle will carry at least 5 to 6 rounds in a magazine and once the magazine is empty, you can put magazine in it in 5 seconds or less. As far as the AWB; this law never impacted illegal sales of guns at all nor did it take any guns off the street. It was pure politics, nothing more nothing less. The law was circumvented by cosmetic changes to the firearms and selling them with smaller ammunition magazines, but higher capacity magazines were always available on the black market imported illegally from China, Mexico, etc by criminals. You see, criminals will ALWAYS get the gun they want, no matter what the law.

I may be liberal, but I do enjoy hunting and know a little bit about firearms. The guns don't kill; killers kill with guns.

[SittingInTheMiddle]

64. If you're anti-gun and anti-hunting, just say so.

The gun is completely irrelevant here.

[slackmaster]

305. The SKS rifle was not covered by the AWB

So its demise this September is completely irrelevant to this tragic incident.

[KingChicken]

14. Mabey he freaked out by being outnumbed....

Who knows, mabey the group was being hostile towards him and he freaked.

[Scout]

26. suspect's version sounds more plausible to me...

Vang told investigators he didn't realize he was on private property when he climbed the tree stand, according to the probable-cause statement released Tuesday. The county has thousands of acres of public hunting land, some of it "virtually around" the private property where the shooting occurred, Meier has said.

A hunter approached Vang to tell him he was on private property, and Vang started to leave as other hunters approached, the statement said. Vang said the hunters surrounded him, and some started calling him racial slurs.

Vang said he started walking away but looked back to see the first hunter point his rifle at him and then fire a shot that hit the ground 30 to 40 feet behind him, the statement said.

That's when Vang told investigators he started firing at the group, and some fell to the ground and others tried to run away, according to the statement.

the above seems "more true" to me than the following....

"The suspect got down from the deer stand, walked 40 yards, fiddled with his rifle. He took the scope off his rifle, he turned and he opened fire on the group," Meier said.

Why would he stop and take the scope off? He was "getting away" but decided to stop, fiddle with his rifle and take the scope off, and then open fire on a group of people 40 yards away, one of who has a rifle??

I'm not trying to excuse his killing 6 people, but I'm right now leaning toward believing the suspect's version of things. :shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

32. He'd stop to take off his scope...

so that he could reload with a stripper clip. Remember, the SKS only has a 10 round capacity, and to reload without a stripper clip is a royal pain in the ass. Scopes prevent the use of stripper clips.

What the guy's story doesn't account for is why he tracked the people down and shot them in the back. If he was scared, and they were running away, he'd use that time to get away, not track people down and then ambush rescuers.

[Scout]

39. from the other LBN thread...

BIRCHWOOD, Wis. - As several deer hunters made their way through the woods of northern Wisconsin, they were startled to come upon a stranger in their tree stand. Asked to leave, the trespasser, wearing blaze-orange and carrying a semiautomatic assault rifle, opened fire on the hunters and didn't stop until his 20-round clip was empty, leaving five people dead and three wounded, authorities said.
-----------------------

don't know if he reloaded or not ... this refers to one 20-round clip.

[DoNotRefill]

42. scout...the media people generally don't know dick about guns....

hence gems like "semi-automatic revolver" and "high-powered .22LR assault rifle"

[Scout]

67. donotrefill .... what makes you think he reloaded?f

just my question about why he'd take off the scope? did you see any news accounts or statements from police indicating he reloaded?

[DoNotRefill]

74. It's a matter of the type of weapon he had.

they come standard with an integral 10 round box magazine. He fired 20 shots. Therefore, unless there's some other evidence that his gun had been modified to have a 20 round capacity (and most modifications for that model of rifle accept 30, not 20, rounds) it sounds like he reloaded.

If you hear of a pickup truck crashing that had 15 people on board, it's a fairly safe assumption that there were a bunch of people in the bed of the truck, since 15 people will not fit in the cab of a pickup truck.

[schrodinger_I]

103. I had an SKS

It was a paratrooper model and a bit shorter than the normal ones. It also had the modification where I could use 30 round magazines from AK-47s. I never used a stripper clip. It is possible that this guy had a similar model and never had to reload. I think in some states you are limited to 5 or 10 rounds so people use the shorter magazine. Just my $0.02.

[jayfish]

118. I Had A Pre-Ban Mak-90...

(Very similar to SKS) and it also came with a five-round mag. Right next to it though were plenty of 30-round ones.

Jay

[tom II]

128. EXACTLY

Sad but true. The media always hype the firearm. A commentater I heard said the SKS was a "banned automatic machine gun"!!

All these media types need to take a firearms course and go hunting a few times.

In fact, all America would benefit if EVERYBODY had to take a firearms course and went hunting, kids included.

[Mistress Quickly]

141. Eddie Eagle!

[tedzbear]

78. Maybe they weren't running away...

...maybe they all had guns pointing at him and they fired, but later the survivors removed their guns to change the story. This thing sounds very fishy to me...

I wish they could find the missing two hunters who had been hunting with the accused. Maybe they were witnesses.

[LisaL]

112. Is there even a scratch on him?

Geez, if 15 people fired at him, he would be dead.
:nuke:

[yellowcanine]

55. Need forensic evidence - it should not be too difficult to figure out

which guns were fired recently and which persons fired guns. Finding casings should not be to difficult with metal detectors. Finding bullets that plowed into the ground or into trees will be more difficult but not impossible, particularly if the locations of the casings were carefully noted. Good police work should soon tell who is lying and who is not. It is possible that both sides are not telling the whole truth. It is possible that some of the dead people could shed more light on what happened so it will be up to the medical examiner and the police to tell their tale.

[heidiho]

27. People Here Don't Like the Hmong People at all

and it would not surprise me at all if they taunted him. There have been other incidents of Hmong and other ethnic groups hunting on private property because they don't understand the property laws and lines well.

The reaction around here is "F'ing Hmongs". If it had been a Hispanic it would have been "F'ing wetback or spic" and, God forbid, it was an African-American - well, you know what would have been said.

I work and have worked extensively with the Hmong people and find them to be wonderful kind and peaceful people. Perhaps we will never know what really happened.

It's sad for all concerned.

[SittingInTheMiddle]

73. The guy had been in the US for 20 years

and served in the US military.

I rather doubt he didn't understand the concept of private property.

[Zynx]

213. Guy was a poacher

Had an arrest in MN for possessing 93 fish.

[stavka]

313. He may have been hungry......

I say that Robin Hood was a crook! Taking the King's deer deserves hanging!

[Walt Starr]

30. I don't buy his bullshit story. This guy is a mass murderer.

I think he's a poster child for the death penalty.

[Viking12]

38. So you're saying that the proper response to cold blooded killing

is state-sponsored cold blooded killing? I am glad you can't satisfy your bloodlust in my state. There are no rational resons for the death penalty. It's not a deterrent. It's not economically sound. It is simply state conducted vengence.

[Walt Starr]

41. It is a deterrent

The guy that gets put to death will never kill again.

You've effectively deterred one proven killer.

[Viking12]

48. Incarceration has the same effect

without reducing our society to barbarism.

[Walt Starr]

51. Nope, nowhere near as effective

Do you know how many prisoners are murdered in prison each year?

[Viking12]

152. The murder rate in CA prisons in 2003

was 3 per 100,000. I only took the time to do the research for the nation's largest state, but I confident CA is a representative sample. Compared to the national murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000, I'd say it is very effective. Do what you need need to do to rationalize barbarism, hey you could even join the republican party.

[Walt Starr]

158. Say what you like, I support the death penalty and the 2nd amendment

:shrug:

and I'm still a Democrat.

[asm826]

285. I'm still a democrat, too

But I'm voting 2nd amendment issues. Until they "get it" and start to support the whole Constitution.

[BUSHOUT]

113. And encouraged a host of others

The death penalty creates exactly the kind of atmosphere in which people feel it's OK to kill.

Not to mention that you've seemingly convicted a man thus far presummed innocent.

[Flammable Materials]

337. Explain how the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

To "deter" means "to keep something from happening".

Killing someone after they've killed someone else is hardly a "deterrent".

Most people who are willing to kill are willing to die as well. It's not like people who are willing to kill are rational, sensible folks who are open to reason, logic, and legal deterrents.

[DoNotRefill]

45. It's moot....

since there's no death penalty where this happened.

[Walt Starr]

69. D'oh

Owh well, he'll do some hard time.

[Clovis Sangrail]

139. rationality

There are no rational resons for the death penalty. It's not a deterrent. It's not economically sound. It is simply state conducted vengence.

There are people who are a net negative to society; people with whom society would be better off without.

That's perfectly "rational".


It's just that the line past which somebody falls into this category is unclear.

I fully believe there are people in this world who deserve to die (some in excruciating pain),
but the state is not competent to determine who they are.

[Viking12]

163. By what measure do you rationally judge, "net negative to society"

[Clovis Sangrail]

248. I'm not saying this man is..

just that there are people who are.

How about somebody who:
- rapes at 14
- commits armed robbery at 17
- rapes and nearly beats somebody to death at 25
- kills 2 people and maims another in a botched armed robbery at 32.

... and has no desire to do anything other than "slap some bitch up" as soon as he gets out again?

[AngryAmish]

150. No hot shot in Wisco

[heidiho]

31. Maybe a Better Question is Why Was He Hunting with an assault rifle

Oh, I forgot, Bush says it's okay to have them!!!

[Mistress Quickly]

33. I don't think the weapon was

covered by the AWB in the first place.

from a story:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/23/wis_deer_hunting_trip_turns_deadly?pg=2

Mike Bartz, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource's regional warden supervisor for the area, said the SKS is legal for hunting in the state and has no restrictions.

''We see more and more of them being used. They're a fairly cheap weapon. They fire a cartridge very similar to a .30-30, which is a very common weapon used for deer hunting," Bartz said.

<<< end snip
nope, wasn't covered, but DoNotRefill pointed it out too:

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/sksfactsheetfinal.pdf

the rifle is not covered by the federal assault weapons ban.

[napi21]

59. Weapon was an SKS 7.62mm with a 20 round cliip.

This info is from an AP story published in the Gainesvill Times this morning.

Now, I don't know if it's considered an assault weapon or not, but I'm from a family of deer hunters, and in 61 years, I've NEVER known real hunters to carry any weapon with 20 rounds, just to hunt deer! Is this hunting, or some other kind of new sport?

[makhno]

34. It wasn't an assault rifle

Enough already.

[tom II]

56. the SKS firearm

The SKS that he used was never covered by the Assault Weapon Ban. It is nothing more than a cheaper semi automatic rifle barely legal for taking deer. The rifle is popular in the Hmong community in Minnesota because it is very cheap to buy & ammunition is not expensive for it. The Hmong decend from a long line of hunters.

Regardless, even any semi automatic expensive sporting rifle will carry at least 5 to 6 rounds in a magazine and once the magazine is empty, you can put magazine in it in 5 seconds or less. As far as the AWB; this law never impacted illegal sales of guns at all nor did it take any guns off the street. It was pure politics, nothing more nothing less. The law was circumvented by cosmetic changes to the firearms and selling them with smaller ammunition magazines, but higher capacity magazines were always available on the black market imported illegally from China, Mexico, etc by criminals. You see, criminals will ALWAYS get the gun they want, no matter what the law.

[BUSHOUT]

76. Yes, it was banned under the AWB. Welcome to DU.

It could fire 20 rounds. To be legal under the old AWB, it would need to fire less than 15.

If you're going to tell me that it was "modified", don't bother. By being modified it was banned.

[DoNotRefill]

86. Cite, please.

there was no "15 round" ban in the AW ban, there was a ban on magazines that took more than 10 rounds, which is what the SKS standard magazine capacity was. Consequently, millions of SKS rifles WERE imported during the 10 years of the AW ban. And the ban on placing larger capacity magazines on SKS rifles dates not to the 1994 AW ban, but to the 1989 EO and the sporting purpose test.

[BUSHOUT]

95. one link..

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/10252297.htm

[DoNotRefill]

105. please feel free to review the code....

and show me where there was even a MENTION of 15 round capacity in the 1994 AW ban.

[BUSHOUT]

117. I gave you a link, please feel free to prove it wrong.

To tell you the truth, I'm not really interested. If a 20 round clip wasn't banned, it should be.

Period.

[slackmaster]

126. It was a non-removable magazine, not a clip

And here is a link to the actual (expired) federal code:

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

No rifle that doesn't take detachable magazines was ever a federal AW.

[Boosterman]

309. lmao

nice comeback....or not.

[BUSHOUT]

320. Not meant as a comeback

Debating gun nuts is a waste of time.

[Boosterman]

322. Yeah I know

That silly constitution thing always gets in the way. Not to mention those annoying statistics.

[BUSHOUT]

324. Sorry. Gun nuts lie. They lie about the constitution and use statistics.

compiled by liars.

It's a joke.

[Boosterman]

327. Yeah good reply.

Read the federalist papers. I used to agree with you.

[BUSHOUT]

330. Read FreeRepublic? No thanks, I don't associate with broken people.

[Boosterman]

333. Ummm no

I said the Federalist Papers. It's basically a bunch of papers written by the founding fathers. It kinda gives some perspective about how they felt about firearms. Look I didnt want a flamewar....but I know what I believe. It's possible I am wrong. Persuade me....don't flame me.

[beevul]

336. *Who* lies?

"For Release: Monday, November 22, 2004"

(Guess the vpc waited a whole 12 hours, if that, to use the death of 6 people for their agenda. That was nice of them. :eyes: )


"Armed hunters were no match for one person firing an SKS assault rifle," said Kristen Rand, VPC legislative director."

http://www.vpc.org/press/0411wisc.htm

Seems to me there was only ONE armed hunter in the group referred to as "armed hunters". Well, maybe not. After the initial shooting (whos parties consisted of 1 armed man, and a group of 5 or more with 1 gun among them), a couple ARMED hunters approached on ATV and the shooter decided NOT to shoot them, because they were ARMED. The VPC didn't bother to mention that. Either way, they do not have their facts strait, but they have the propaganda machine cranked up to overdrive anyway.

I know. Surely just an error. :eyes:

"Wisconsin Hunter Murders Show Need For Effective Assault Weapons Ban—Armed Hunters No Match For SKS Assault Rifle"

Not to mention, that the SKS in question, is neither an "assault weapon" (by any definition) NOR an "assault rifle" (by any definition). That being the case, the murders show NO SUCH NEED, for ANY such ban.

I know. Thats just irrelevant details. :eyes:



Where I come from, THAT is called a lie. The police report, and the shooters (perpetrators) statements bear it out.

Care to comment on that, before further pointing any fingers at who you think lies?

This is just the LATEST example of the kool-aide that has been passed around since the mid 90's. :beer:

Have you been drinking it? :beer: Be honest.


"Gun nuts lie"


Me, I just might not have been so quick to point fingers...

Just say no to kool-aide.

[SittingInTheMiddle]

138. Wrong. Try reading facts instead of dumbass reporters.

If the magazine was not detachable (without removing the trigger group), which it wasn't, then it was not subject to the ban. Period.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c103YUFKMH:e643897:

If, in fact, it had been modified to accept a removable magazine, then it would've needed at least 2 more Evil Looking Features to be subject to the ban. Those Evil Lookin Features, and their applicability to the SKS:

Folding/telescopign stock: No.
Pistol grip: No.
Bayonet Mount: Probably. Call it a yes.
Flash Suppressor or threaded barrel: Maybe. Depends on variant
Grenade launcher: No.

So...very few SKS copies would have been "covered" under the AWB - those that had a flash suppressor and bayonet mount AND had been modified to have a removable magazine...which it doesn't sound like his did since he removed the scope to allow him to reload...

[BUSHOUT]

148. As I've said, I don't really care. 20 round clips should be banned.

period.

[SittingInTheMiddle]

155. I'm not going to argue against your right to that opinion

and it would be pointless to do so.

However...it is positions such as that, along with the views expressed by Ms. Diane "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in!" Feinstein that will continue to present a roadblock to electing more democrats for many, many years.

I seldom use magazines larger than 10 rounds for target work (although I know some who do) and I _think_ there is a state law around here about what size magazine you can hunt with...but I don't agree with banning them any more than I agree with banning abortions or with the drug war, etc.

The EXTREME vast majority of people who own these guns never commit a crime with them. They shouldn't pay the price for the handful of wackos who do, when those wackos are violating plenty of other laws in the process.

[BUSHOUT]

267. Not having 20 rounds is "paying a price"?? Um, OK.

whatever.

It's pointless to tell gun nuts they don't need crazy deadly weapons, so I won't argue with you either.

The idea that law-abiding citizens don't commit crimes with guns so they should be able to own whatever they want is an old on among NRA members.
Are you also of the opinion that there should be no restrictions on gun owners...such as forced lockup of guns?

[asm826]

286. I'm of the opinion...

That the same Constitution that prohibits restricting speech also prohibits restriciting firearms. Congress just can't do it. Any firearms laws are defacto unconstitutional. Any. Registration, forced lockup, magazine size, semi vs. full automatic, any.
I want all my rights protected, from Ashcroft and Brady.

[BUSHOUT]

316. You're on the wrong forum then

This place is for liberals.

Your "opinion" is rightwing ignorance.

[Boosterman]

328. Ah and

so according to your threat to have me banned you are the sole judge of what is and isnt liberal.

[DoNotRefill]

340. Tell that to Lawrence Tribe...

he's the foremost Constitutional Law Scholar in the US. He's a Democrat. And he thinks the Second Amendment does indeed convey an individual right.

[asm826]

287. Double post

[DoNotRefill]

214. It's been done...

and it cost us a shitload of seats in Congress plus the Presidency twice.

How much are you willing to sacrifice to get rid of high-capacity magazines?

[tom II]

108. No, not banned

Actually, for the SKS, what matters is the year it was imported into the US, not when it was made. Very rarely, can we know it's import date. Some, like the Albanians and Yugos, are all post-ban - period.
The Russians are pretty much all pre-ban. The Chinese are the gray area - who knows? Plenty were imported post-ban with the bayo lugs, before the crackdown then the lugs were simply removed.

As far as the size of the magazine: you could buy any size magazine as long as it was manufactured pre AWB. Plus Wisconsin did not have any separate "high capacity" magazine ban law.

All the AWB ban did is make people feel good. It never stopped anything; which is precisely why it was allowed to expire.

[slackmaster]

120. No, fixed magazine rifles could have any capacity of magazine

Under the expired federal assault weapons ban a rifle had to take detachable magazines to qualify as an AW. Fixed magazines could be of any size.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

20-round fixed magazines for standard SKS rifles are commonly available accessories.

[slackmaster]

116. Because he wasn't

The SKS has never been classified as an "assault weapon" by the US or any state.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

72. I KNEW IT! I told my wife that these yahoos were racially taunting...

Why couldn't everyone see the OBVIOUS...Vietnamese suspect and anglo-white hick victims. Volatile mix for sure.

Frankly, if these hick victims were racially taunting the suspect and shot at him, I CONGRATULATE VANG. Five less Shrub lemming supporters in my view...

...now, I'm on my way to hell.

JB

[tedzbear]

84. Right on, AngryWhiteLiberal!

I don't trust the story of those hunters anymore than I trust the story of the accused.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

89. I'm not saying Vang is a great guy...just the wrong person to fuck with.

Every once in a while, we hear these stories of racist, dumbass losers taunting the WRONG persons (either unstable or hair trigger tempers...think Taxi Driver types) and then we're supposed to be sympathetic to these dumbasses when they are killed or hurt as a result of their actions. Well, I say FUCK'EM.

I have NO ounce of pity for someone who goes out of his/her way to bully or taunt, and then gets his/her ass kicked as a result.

Karmic justice is alive and well.

JB

[slackmaster]

147. How many racial taunts are six human lives worth?

:shrug:

Correction: Make that alleged racial taunts.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

156. None. But, don't expect warmth and kindness as a result, either.

Vang apparently was not a "turn the other cheek" type.

The cold hard fact is that those 6 individuals would probably be alive today, if they weren't stupid and proceeded to taunt and tease an armed man. Not a smart move to do, no matter what.

JB

[slackmaster]

159. Once again, unsubstantiated assumptions

The cold hard fact is that those 6 individuals would probably be alive today, if they weren't stupid and proceeded to taunt and tease an armed man.

Let's shelve this discussion until we have more concrete information about what actually happened in the moments prior to the shootings. I'm sure the stories of the surviving victims will differ from that of the perpetrator, who will say anything and everything to try to keep his sorry violent ass out of prison.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

165. So, we're to believe that this guy sought these people out?

He's a killer, no doubt. But, why would he go out of his way to kill these people? What's the motive?

A taunt/racial incident involving stupid people and a hair-trigger Laoian Vet makes more sense than just some random mass killing.

Vang should go to prison no matter what, but I don't believe that he'll be sentenced without reduction from "extenuating circumstances."

Sadly, no matter what. He's not going to get a fair trial in that part of the country.

JB

[slackmaster]

168. To me the most obvious explanation is Vang is psychotic

Maybe on amphetamines or other mind-altering drugs.

But, why would he go out of his way to kill these people? What's the motive?

The motives of a psychotic may not be fathomable to a normal person.

A taunt/racial incident involving stupid people and a hair-trigger Laoian Vet makes more sense than just some random mass killing.

No, shooting six people in response to a verbal slight makes no sense whatsoever.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

174. O.K., so it makes it even more stupid to TAUNT a psychotic with a gun.

Even psychotics tend to need triggers (mental one, that is) to set them off.

JB

[slackmaster]

176. It's stupid to taunt any stranger 'cause you never know who's psycho

And/or armed.

But so far the only evidence we have that anyone taunted Vang is his ill-advised statement that he was acting in self-defense. He's a criminal defendant and should keep his mouth shut.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

178. Touche. And, good point. n/t

JB

[NNN0LHI]

264. That is sage advice slackmaster n/t

[neohippie]

245. if you were standing anywhere and holding a gun and people started shootin

at you mind me, would you shoot back?

[Igel]

191. So here's part of Vang's story

From the link cited above (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=6&u=/ap/20041123/ap_on_re_us/hunters_shot):

"Vang said he heard Willers call on a walkie-talkie, and five or six men on all-terrain vehicles approached a few moments later. Vang said the group surrounded him, and some used racial slurs.

"He said that he was told to get off the property, and as he started walking away, he turned back and saw Willers point a gun at him from about 100 feet away. He told investigators he immediately dropped to a crouch, and Willers shot at him, the bullet hitting the ground 30 to 40 feet behind Vang.

"Vang said he removed the scope from his rifle and began firing, continuing to shoot as the group scattered. He said one of the victims, Joey Crotteau, tried to run away, but Vang chased him, got within 20 feet and shot him in the back. Crotteau, 20, was killed. Willers was wounded and was listed in fair condition Tuesday.


"Vang said as he began to run, an ATV with two people drove past and he fired three or four times, causing both people to fall off the machine. He said that he looked up the trail, saw that one of the men was standing, yelled, "You're not dead yet?" and fired one more shot in the man's direction. He said he did not know if he hit the man or not."

[Zynx]

202. Does not agree with the police

They only found one gun. He's describing at least three.

Plus some really bad shooting with weapons that are very accurate.

This sounds like BS.

[neohippie]

247. so you really believe that 8 people go into the woods to hunt

and only take one gun?

[DoNotRefill]

259. I think that they were wandering around the woods...

not hunting. There is a difference, and there are valid reasons why a hunter might walk around without a gun.

[Zynx]

281. I've been with my father hunting without a gun.

Sometimes there is only one hunter with a loaded gun, or a gun at all, for safety reasons. If you have eight people with loaded guns in a small area, that's a recipe for disaster.

[dArKeR]

91. Without name calling "yahoos" it could be true. I was born in Chicago

and spent a lot of time in WI and MI. (You can check my posts over the last 3 years.) I've said many times that when I go back to visit my childhood 'friends' still use the words, 'fucking nigger' fucking chink', 'fucking nip', 'fucking gook', 'fucking spic', 'fucking sand nigger'... and every other dirty word imaginable. The American Whore Media is living the lie if they don't report this. I could tape a 100 friends in two days witht this kind of language so why couldn't 60 Minutes? What kind of moral and truthful America are we living in?

Remember that film about Roswell. The guy was from WI and taking a bus to Roswell. It was pretty funny. What about the part with the WI hunters teaching the star to protect himself against aliens. They were training him how to shoot a gun. The white WI hunter said, 'Oh God, shoot like a whiteman.' This has never been edited out.

The name calling is not a defense but if they shot first that's different

[dArKeR]

93. 8 black hunters, 1 shoots at the white man being run off and the whtie man

returns fire. What would Pat Robertson be saying?

[dArKeR]

Colorado's "Make My Day" law - Man in home shoots and kills neighbor

who came to his door, standing outside, the neighbor asked the man to stop his dogs from barking. The neighbor was holding a golf club in his hand but did not try to enter the home. Did not swing it at the man. The man with the dogs shot and killed the neighbor as he stood on his porch. The man was completely let off because of the "Make My Day" law which says if you just feel threatened you are justified to kill the other people. (as long as they are black, asian other white trash.)

[slackmaster]

146. A whole lot of unsubstantiated assumptions there

And a healthy dose of bigotry.

[asm826]

291. So violence is good

As long as it suits your purpose. Fair enough. We know where you stand.

[el_gato]

83. Looks like you folks have your new Laci Peterson type distraction

[Swamp Rat]

234. EXACTLY!!!

[LisaL]

88. I don't buy it.

If they fired at him first, he would not be able to kill 6 people, no way, because they would be ready.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

98. It's more likely that they were bullies, who had their bluff called...

It's been my experience that bullies tend to shit their pants and freak out if someone calls their bluff. If they fired on Vang as a joke, I can guarantee you that they were NOT expecting him to retailate. Apparently, there was only one or two guns in the racist yahoo victim group, so Vang probably took these folks out first. He was a Vietnam Vet, so training would dictate neutralizing the primary threats first.

This is a simple case of dumbass racists fucking with the wrong guy.

JB

[LisaL]

104. That guy killed 6 people, among them a woman and a child.

:eyes:

[LeftHander]

107. True...monster...hate was factor on both sides...

Hate. Booze and guns....

Not a good mix...

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

114. Hunh? So, you're saying women and young adults can't be racist or bullies

Being a woman or young adult does not immunize one from racist or aggressive bullying behavior.

JB

[kslib]

134. So you're say all hunters

are hicks and bigots?

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

144. DAMN STRAIGHT...a good majority are just that.

I grew up in the tri-state Mississippi Delta region (Memphis) and spend many years being exposed to hunters in the Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi backwaters. Additionally, I used to backpack and camp in Connecticut and Massachusetts. And, I can UNEQUIVOCALLY say that only once did I come into contact with a hunter who exposed a philosophy diametrically different from the predominant Xtian, racist, bigoted, Country music-listening, assholes.

Something tells me that my experiences are NOT atypical of most hunters, no matter the region.

JB

[DoNotRefill]

161. Just out of curiosity....

was Vang a "Xtian, racist, bigoted, Country music-listening, asshole"?

If not, we're up to TWO now.

[kslib]

162. Well that's just great.

My dad, who hunts for our family's meat supply because he doesn't like the way that slaughter houses treat their animals, used to be a party-line democrat. He still votes democrat, but no longer considers himself a "party supporter." He used to be involved, but said that he was tired of people assuming that just because he lives in Kansas, hunts, and is a *gasp* truck driver, that he's a white trash hick bigot. He's always told me that just like he doesn't assume minorities to be like their stereotypes, he wants the same respect and consideration. Just because these hunters are white, and not an oppressed minority, it gives you no right to make sweeping generalizations about them. These guys (and girl) had families. They may have been bigots, or they may have also been like my dad and his friends. Good men who work hard for their families, and hunt for food or leisure; men who don't say racial slurs, and judge others by their actions, not their culture or skin color. What makes you think it's okay to generalize and name call? Isn't that exactly what you're accusing them of?

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

172. I NEVER said all hunters were that way...just the majority.

Just like the current political landscape, there are more of these backwards-assed folks out there than there are of us. See the results from three weeks ago for proof...

Do you honestly believe that the majority of hunters are liberal-minded, non-homophobe, rational, altruistic, jazz-loving individuals? Come on! Don't kid yourself.

JB

[kslib]

180. Well...

I don't think that one can automatically assume that they are bigots, or backwards, as in my experience they are about half and half. Perhaps, since I was raised around "good hunters" my view is a little naive. Frankly, I kind of like it that way I probably wouldn't have been so venemous, but I got you confused with another poster I replied to earlier (whoops). It's just hard to read a lot of these posts when you live in a "red" state. We already have to live amongst the "red" and get the whole "hippie" etc. label; it's infuriating to have the "blue" side throw out more labels based on our (or our family's) location/profession/hobbies. Probably just let my frustration get the best of me. Okay, I'm finished whining now!

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

270. You're not alone. I, too, am a "blue boy" in a red state (NC).

I share in your suffering, though I have to say that Chapel Hill is a tiny oasis of liberalism in a state of rampant fundy Repuke, Bible-beaters.

JB

[kslib]

290. Chapel Hill!

Well, that's why we disagreed! I'm originally from Lawrence, KS. I think you all stole our b-ball coach!

:hi:

[Mills Street]

188. The problem is...

you use the same logic as any racist. All generalizations. All stereotypes. So called "experiences" with people you probably don't even know. Equating this group of people with murders. I mean, just think before you say things like this.

[slackmaster]

149. No, youth and gender don't immunize people from bullying

Any more than being a "progressive" or "liberal" immunizes them from making bigoted statements.

:argh:

[DoNotRefill]

109. wait wait wait wait wait.....

the guy was 36 years old, and a Vietnam vet???

Neat trick, that....

[LisaL]

115. Yep, amazing, isn't it?

I guess he was first un-born Vietnam Vet.
:eyes:

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

119. Sorry, no Vietnam...just a Vet. My mistake. n/t

JB

[tom II]

121. He was NOT a vietnam vet,

Vang was NOT a vietnam vet. The guy came to this country in 1980 from Laos when he was 12 years old! He was in the US Military, but not in Vietnam! He was 8 years old when the Vietnam war ended!

Take a look at the criminal history of this guy Vang. As far as the "racist yahoo victim group", I would definately want you on my jury if I was Vang.

Read the report: he took the scope off his gun and that takes a little doing with screws. He did that so he could easily aim and fire at his running victims, something hindered by a scope. Vang knew he was going to have to kill everybody that was a witness and that is what he attempted to do.

[el_gato]

135. Well he's asian and likes animals

:evilgrin:

[Zynx]

216. Actually, he's a poaching little bitch - not an animal lover

Did you see the bit about his arrest for possessing 93 fish AT ONCE in MN?

[bobbyboucher]

298. Your slip is showing.

FYI.

[LeftHander]

106. Alcohol , racism and firearms - Former hunter & N. Wis resident...

RUnning it through my head I came to the conclusion that the only ways this guy would of opened fire was:

1. he was bent on killing people and possibly suicide.
2. They threatened him he retaliated
3. They insulted him and he retaliated

Either way crimes were probably committed by both sides.

I grew up in SOuth Dakota on a ranch and we were protectors of our land from intrusion by hunters. My father told me that if I encountered anyone on our property to make sure you stayed away from them and call the sheriff.(paranoid)He said I could fire a warning shot in the air to get there attention from a safe distance if they don't leave when they see your car or truck coming out. Ussually the people would leave when they saw the truck come. SOmetimes I would just wait by thier car until they returned to talk with them. Tell them its okay to ask first and I would show them where the good spots were. We had plenty of land and so many from town had no place to hunt. Met some nice folks.

Years later - I also lived not far from where this incident took place. I know also what goes on in "deer camp" drinking and lots of it. Make no mistake about I would bet even money that some of the victms will be found with alcohol in thier systems.

Police will find the bullet if one was fired into the dirt if it hasn't been recovered already.

What we have here is likely going to be a case of hate. He hated rednecks they hated him. he started shooting they ended up dead.

No I know how this place is people. Sawyer country was one of the scenes of riots at boat landings when NAtive Americans began spearing walleye during spawn. People forget that Native Americas were shot at by Sawyer county locals whille they were out in boats. Death threats and worse. There is racism thick as snot up there. And people are freaking alcoholics. Booze drives everything up there.

Now this doesn't justify shooting 8 people. But what it does point out that when you mix alcohol, guns and racism you get dead people.

All in all it should be a pointer to the rural "moral values" crowd.

[jayfish]

136. Well Said.

My sentiments exactly. I haven't watched anyone die over it but I have witnessed everything else in your post.

Jay

[msmcghee]

164. I noticed your comment . . .

. . He said I could fire a warning shot in the air to get there attention from a safe distance if they don't leave when they see your car or truck coming out.

This sounds like very bad advice. If I was hunting and thought I was on public land, and someone stopped from a distance to check me out and then fired a shot - I would definitely consider the possibility that they were trying to shoot me. It's not that easy to know if the shot was fired in the air or toward you - especially if you were surprised by it. I'd consider any threatening shot as an attempt to kill me and I'd defend myself if I thought I needed to.

Also, what's a safe distance? Further than the range of my gun?

I know farmers who have claimed that shooting near a trespasser to scare the shit out of them is OK - they'd just claim they thought it was a deer in the brush or a coyote if they hit them.

It is very easy to end up on private land if you hunt by foot. Ranchers post signs along the highway, if at all. But there are seldom signs posted away from roads.

I always ask permission when I can find the house and I've sometimes wasted several hours trying to find the owner's house. But if they don't post signs and you can't figure out who owns the land - you can justifiably assume they don't mind hunters on their land. At least that's how it works here in the west.

[LeftHander]

288. Indeed bad advice....

From my father...on shooting in the air..I saw him do it and my brother.

I though would either wait by the trespassers car if they were out on he land or take license number....

For the most part in South Dakota the majority of trespassing by hunters was during pheaseant season. So shotguns were the norm.

Deer hunting season it was pretty much agreed on as you said...if it is posted go ask permission to gain access to hunt, reteive game etc..

If not...you could assume it was okay...

just close the gates....

;)

[Catchawave]

110. This is so sad...but....

...were the dearly departed tested for alcohol? And have ballistics been run on all the rifles and fatal/mortal wounds involved?

Guess what I don't get is...it was about 15 against ONE. And the Laotian had nary a scratch?

My apologies if this sounded insensitive, I just never trust stories involving racism.

[slackmaster]

111. Friggin' Idjit should keep his damnfool mouth shut!

Doesn't he have a decent defense attorney yet?

:argh:

[johnnie]

127. This should be interesting when the facts are all out

Needless to say, some of you are already wanting this guy to fry before he ever goes to court...Ahhh I love America.
I think the story of the victim's sounds a bit like bullshit to me. One guy is on the property so they send everyone out to tell this guy to leave. Only one firearm between the eight? Something doesn't seem right there either.
To me this sounds like an old time lynch gang fucking with the wrong guy. I will wait for all the evidence to make a final decision on what I think, but so far I am inclined to think that these people were scaring the shit out of this guy and he snapped.

[LisaL]

132. He killed 6 people. He killed a woman and a child.

I really don't care if he had a difficult childhood.
:nuke:

[johnnie]

133. A child?

The 20 year old is a child? And what makes a woman any different if she is the one that maybe fired on this guy first?

[LisaL]

196. The guy was trespassing and then killed 6 people.

He was on private property. Yet apparently it was fine for him to kill 6 people because he is Asian. Some of you truly are crazy.

[johnnie]

212. As I stated

I will wait for all the facts. I think that some people are crazy for wanting this guy to fry without him even going to trial. Also as I stated, some of you sound like an old fashion lynching mob.

[Uzybone]

219. I fear for DU sometimes

some people will defend alleged criminals at any cost. Why are people automatically believing this guy? because he is Asian and his victims are white? We dont know the facts yet.

[johnnie]

257. I fear for America

Why do people automatically believe what they read and find people guilty before they are put on trial?

[LisaL]

224. The woman was riding in the ATV. She arrived on the scene

at a later time and was shot. She did not even had a gun.
Read the police report.
:spank:

[johnnie]

232. Do you have a link to the police report?

All I have seen was what was written in the news. And I don't know if I trust what the story says the "victim" says.

[LisaL]

254. The police report link is on here somewhere. I suggest you find it.

And since victim is dead, she doesn't say anything. Vang said that, according to the police report. He also said he run after an un-armed man and shot him several times, finally killing him. This man was running away screaming "help me".
That's not victim's statements, that's Vang's statements according to the police report.

[johnnie]

260. All I see is links to news sites on here.

As for the "victim" I mentioned:
From the story from the OP " One of the witnesses, a hunter who was wounded in the shootings, gave a statement contradictory to Vang's."

I will take back my statement about the woman shooting first...other than that I stand by my statements that I do not want to pass judgment until the facts are out.

[beevul]

262. Heres the link...

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shooting1123.pdf

It contains scans of the original police report, etc.

Slackmaster posted it toward the end of the thread.

[johnnie]

263. Thank you n/t

[BUSHOUT]

153. Yes. If 3 hunters happened upon him, why did they only have one gun??

I think these hunters are covering for themselves.

[wtmusic]

169. That is very strange

1) you don't take little kids out hunting
2) everyone in every hunting trip I've been on had a gun

[tedzbear]

170. I agree!

"I think these hunters are covering for themselves."

Me too. And the white police are covering for them too.

[Zynx]

204. "White Police covering for dead whites against the Asian"

Would you like some tinfoil with that?

[stavka]

318. I don't think the police are covering for anybody....

They've been strangely quite about this incident given it's supposed open and shut nature...

[gizmo1979]

140. I live in wi

I thought something like this would come out.My experience with people in northern wis is there are alot of rednecks up there.I'am from southern wi and white and they didn't care for me.Of course that is no reason to shoot 8 people,but I can kinda see where he's coming from.

[hexola]

142. I think he shot them FROM the tree stand...

Im not buying ANY of the media reports...just working scenarios out in my head...

I think he was confronted...was afraid to get out of the stand...was shot at...and well...what would you do if one of these guys shot at you?...You would shoot back...to kill. He may not have known which person shot...so he saw them all as threats...

I think the hunters have tried to do some major track covering...

[Mistress Quickly]

166. Forensics will be able

to determine from where the shots were fired, distance, etc.

That will tell the true story.

Maybe.

[Rowdyboy]

151. This board has a number of excellect fiction/fantasy writers

and most of you posted here. Did a vicious, Asian monster stalk and murder an innocent child and her friends and relatives as they returned from the hunt, or did an innocent, carefree Laotian enjoying nature find himself surrounded by belligerent, drunken louts, swigging whiskey and shooting racial obscenities to make him dance?

You people have vivid imaginations. Wait for forensics reports before setting yourself up as judge and jury.

[Zynx]

167. Looking at what some people are saying here, it's no wonder we lose

elections. There are some here readily willing to believe this guy's story solely because he is an ethnic minority. This is an outrageous position.

If anyone bothered to read the Journal Sentinel this morning, they would have learned about this guy's somewhat odd past including threatening his wife with a gun.

Furthermore, just calling a guy an ethnic slur is not an excuse for him brutally murdering six people and trying to kill two others. Bear in mind, many of these people were shot from the back and multiple times. Those are not the actions of a man acting purely in self-defense.

No wonder the right-wing calls us out of touch.

[tedzbear]

171. If the hunters surrounded him and baited him with ethnic slurs...

...they got what they deserved. Stupid and indefensible.

[DoNotRefill]

175. Really?

So if I go into an inner city area, get accosted by 8 members of a minority that use ethnic slurs against me, I'm justified in killing them all??? Even if they're unarmed and I shoot them in the back??? REALLY????

:shrug:

[LisaL]

183. Are you people freaking insane around here?

If you get insulted, it doesn't make it o'key for you to kill 6 people in retaliation.
There would be a lot of dead people if we behaved that way.

[Lex]

198. It's clearly not just about being insulted

but about the possibility that he was being shot at first.

[Zynx]

220. EVEN THAT wouldn't excuse killing everyone

You can't do anything to the buddies of somoene who uses force against you.

Unless they were all armed and all shooting at him, it's murder. It's also murder if someone is wounded and you "finish them off."

And if they were all armed and shooting at him, he would be the one that was dead. Frankly, he would be the one that was dead if someone aimed at him and fired the first shot as well. I don't buy that a hunter with a scoped rifle would miss someone at 40 yards.

[Lex]

241. . . . nor did I say that it did excuse killing ANYone

of them

I merely said, it wasn't just about being INSULTED--he may have been shot at first, which could explain why he FREAKED.

Not legally justified.

The post I was responding to and correcting made it sound like it was ALL about just being insulted, which is incorrect.

[slackmaster]

221. People surrounded him and started shouting slurs and shooting?

I'm trying to envision a "circular firing squad" with hunting weapons at close range in which nobody gets hit.

Sounds like something from the A-Team.

:dunce:

[LisaL]

227. By his own admission, some people

he shot at didn't have any guns.
Some people were running away and were shot in the back.
:spank:

[tedzbear]

261. They picked the wrong guy to surround and threaten with racial slurs

If that's what happened I have no sympathy for them. They got what was coming to them. Karma baby.

[Boosterman]

314. Then you arent a liberal IMO

Just someone who hates. Your agenda is different is all.

[QC]

271. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

If is a mighty big word.

[Lex]

179. He said they SHOT FIRST and called him racial slurs.

No, calling someone a racial slur doesn't mean you are free to kill them.

But if they were shooting at him first, he had a right to defend himself.

I don't know if that's what happened or not, but the scenario where the guy just starts shooting at 6 or so people randomly doesn't make much sense without some more context.

[LisaL]

182. He killed 6 people, and there is no scratch on him, yet they shot

at him first? LOL.
:eyes:

[Lex]

184. Since you weren't there, you have no idea what happened.

If someone fired one shot near him/at the ground, and it freaked him out, then YES, he could've turned around and fired on them all and not have one scratch on him.

Obviously you've limited yourself in your thinking about the differenct scenarios that might've played out there.

You have no better understanding of what may or may not have happened out there than I do, despite what you may have discarded as "LOL."

[LisaL]

195. He didn't just fire at them. He killed 6 people.

You don't kill 6 people by just firing at them. :eyes:

[Lex]

199. Ummm . . . I think he fired at them too.

I'm pretty sure that firing on them is a prerequisite for hitting them and killing them.

No one said he "just" fired at them anyway. He obviously killed them--that is plainly a part of the story.

[Zynx]

210. I think what he meant was "aimed and tried to kill them"

Instead of just "firing." It's very hard to accidentally shoot someone fatally. Not to mention multiple people.

Not to mention that there was only one gun found by the police. Which means at most one person shot at him at any point, which means he shot at least seven unarmed people, and killed at least five of those (assuming he didn't kill the armed one).

He's fucked and responsible.

[Lex]

244. fired at and aimed to kill---still fired at

No, it's not legally justified, nor did for one moment I imply it was.

But if he was shot at first, he may have thought they were trying to kill him and that's why he did what he did.

Does it meet the legal definition of self-defense? Hell no.

But getting fired on first may explain why he may have freaked and shot them all.

[LisaL]

181. Yea, I agree.

No surprise we lose elections. Some people here think it's fine that this guy killed 6 people, including a woman and a child if those people called him an ethnic slur. Hello?
:nuke:

[bobbyboucher]

299. Reading your posts and others' reminds me why we lose to

shit-kicking, racist, bigotted, homophobe, mysogynist, ignorant fuckhead morans, because there are so goddamn many of them.

Are you suggesting that we become like them to win? I am perfectly comfortable with being evolved and losing as opposed to devolving and winning.

[catnhatnh]

173. Oh Boy, is THIS one loaded....

...Gun control,racism,and death penalty all in one news story. Talk about your perfect storm!!!! OK, my two cents worth...For fairness sake I will admit being anti,anti, and (surprise) anti..
So we have at least 3 MAJOR flame points before we EVEN get near the facts of the case.Let's take the elements one at a time and SURPRISE, lets take #2 first...I'm betting that this being DU we will not have a close vote on pro/con arguments of racism.More exactly we just don't know.Did they, mightn't they, couldn't they have arguments have NO place in discussing the tragedies affecting ALL families involved.Our speculation is unwarranted.As they say in the sci-fi's, "all will be revealed".
Now lets take #3 just because to me it's a no-brainer.We the South Africans, China and Muslims countries engage in this. Read the list-Enough said.
Now the toughie....#2..which I think may be quite divisive even here.I am pro gun CONTROL, not elimination.I think MANY more people than are refused for gun ownership SHOULD be and ALL guns should be both registered and tracked.I am both ex-military and have written editorials supporting gun control.My personal reckoning was easy when I asked myself "Can you think of a situation in which you might act in a manner which you might regret? That week I got rid of my personal firearms.Actually a pretty advanced act for 20 year old, I think.
Sit back now and let the story develop,no matter the outcome.No one went in to the forest to confront these 3 questions and I assure you that from here, no answers will come.

[damntexdem]

177. Well, at least now we know why hunters ...

need assault rifles -- to shoot other hunters.

[Endangered Specie]

186. Im sure the deer like that idea.

eom.

[NNN0LHI]

187. Don't know what happened yet...

...but I think this guy was in the military. I wonder if he was ever in combat? If he was I think he pretty much did what he had been trained to do in his position. Sounds like this guy may have went into Rambo mode? Have to wait and see what shakes out before we really know what happened on that tragic night in the woods.

Don

[Zynx]

201. When would he have been in combat?

Desert Storm?? Was there even any infantry fighting in that war?

This sounds like he's attempting to defend himself, instead of using a lawyer.

[NNN0LHI]

218. Actually we have always had soldiers in combat somewhere

Grenada, Panama, Colombia, Somalia, who knows? Whether it has been the jungles of South or Central America, or somewhere else, the US has at any given time had soldiers engaged in combat both overtly and covertly somewhere. As I said, lets wait and hear the story. Or we could wait for the movie. I suspect there will be one.

Don

[Scout]

192. STORY HAS BEEN UPDATED, NEW INFO AT THE LINK IN OP

n/t

[hexola]

208. Where? "link in op" - -whats that?

A little help making sense here please...

[Scout]

251. link in the opening post....

leads to updated version of the original story.

[Horse with no Name]

193. Not trying to justify anything but

I agree with someone above who made the point...why were that many hunters carrying one gun? Is it because they were called on the walkie talkie and were told to come harrass the poor gook they found in their deer stand and they jumped on their ATV's and couldn't get there fast enough for a little sport on sport and left their guns behind?
I'm sorry...I feel sorry for the families of the hunters killed.
But if you call in a posse to surround a man that made a mistake and is trying to leave, then start with racial slurs and shooting pot shots at the ground, then you pretty much purchase your own destiny if that person happens to have a gun. I have a hard time finding pity for these people whose bad luck was to choose someone that was already a little unbalanced to start with to jack with. I guarantee if the outcome was different and the man got away after they were done harrassing him, that would be all they talked about for a month--bragging about it.
You first must ascertain whether or not he KNEW they didnt have guns. If I were in his situation-I would assume they did. How often do you encounter loud mouth bully hunters without guns? Not very often.
Would you be willing to take the chance they had them tucked in their ATV's or carrying concealed pistols if you felt your life was threatened? I am not a hunter, nor do I own a gun--but if I were in this man's position, I believe I may have reacted in a like manner to save my life from this band of bullies.
This last election was won on Guns-God-Gays...and the superior attitude those that believe that mantra possess. You can substitute gays for any other group of people that a particular individual would like to hate and I guarantee you that is what happened on that deer hunting trip.

[LisaL]

197. Yep, no doubt, he is a Prince.

He was arrested previously because he was waiving a gun threatening to kill his own wife. I guess it's too bad he didn't, because she probably called him a name as well.
:eyes:

[seriousstan]

200. Did you read this?

Vang said as he began to run, an ATV with two people drove past and he fired three or four times, causing both people to fall off the machine. He said that he looked up the trail, saw that one of the men was standing, yelled, "You're not dead yet?" and fired one more shot in the man's direction. He said he did not know if he hit the man or not.

By your apologetic lack of horse sense he should have also shot the people who helped him after he was lost and the police who arrested him. After all, by his own admission he was killing unarmed people for no other reason than they might have gotten mad if they fond that he had been killing people.

[hexola]

207. Maybe they were "pretending to be dead..."

Then - of course - they are fair game...

[seriousstan]

225. nice non-sequitor, or did you mispost?

Either way it is not relelvant.

[neohippie]

252. or pretending to be hunters

seeing that only 1 in 8 carried a gun.

[Horse with no Name]

222. Did you read

Where the first guy got on the walkie talkie to bring the others when he was leaving?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6551094/

Landowner Terry Willers approached, asking why Vang was there and pointed out he was on private property. Vang said he told Willers he had not seen any “no trespassing” signs, climbed down from the stand and started to walk away. Authorities say Willers owns the land along with Robert Crotteau, one of the victims.

Vang said he heard Willers call on a walkie-talkie, and five or six men on all-terrain vehicles approached a few moments later. Vang said the group surrounded him, and some used racial slurs.

[Zynx]

223. That's what Vang says - Would you like salt?

I doubt that a pack of guys on ATV's showed up within a few seconds. Highly dubious.

[Name removed]

275. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

205. Link to the actual police report and probable cause statement

Creepy stuff.

...LAUREN HESEBACK HEARD VANG SAY SOMETHING LIKE "ONE OF YOU FUCKERS ARE STILL ALIVE". LAUREN HESEBECK INDICATED THAT HE RETURNED FIRE AT THAT TIME BUT IS UNSURE HOW MANY TIMES....

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shooting1123.pdf

[DoNotRefill]

226. Damn....It's a good thing for Vang that there's no death penalty....

because if he did just what he admitted doing in a jurisdiction with a death penalty, he'd be executed for sure.

There's no way, NO WAY, that there would be a self-defense defense available to him, even assuming that EVERYTHING happened EXACTLY as Vang said it did. He completely nutted out.

[LisaL]

229. Exactly.

By his own freaking admission, he admits he shot at people that were not armed or were running away from the scene.
What self-defense?

[Zynx]

230. Damn right no "self-defense"

The way the law works in this state, you CANNOT use *any* unnecessary force.

That means if someone assaults me, and I knock them down, I cannot proceed to stomp on their throat, kick in their head, or otherwise beat them to death. I have defended myself by knocking him down. No "Finish Him!" allowed.

Nevermind shooting at unarmed people.

[neohippie]

266. In the police report did it say anyone was shot in the back?

I read it and I didn't see anything about anyone shot in the back, so where is that information coming from.

I am not trying to defend Vang or attack country folk, I love to hunt myself, I just want to know what happened, and boths sides stories seem pretty far apart, so I would like to know where the truth might fit into what happened.

[Red State Rebel]

296. It says Vang said he shot at people running from him

I would assume they were shot in the back.

[Zynx]

228. And you people wonder why we lose red states...

I'm seeing a bunch of people defending this guy because he is a minority and the victims were "White Racist Hicks" TM.

This guy was a poacher who had previously threatened to shoot his wife, felt a need to go deer hunting with a military-size clip, was on someone else's land and by all accounts including his shot unarmed people who were running away from him.

But that is ok because he is a poor, oppressed minority and these were hicks.

:argh:

[LisaL]

236. Exactly.

By his own admission, he run after an un-armed man and shot him in the back. But apparently it's fine because the victim was white and killer was asian. The victim was screaming "help me" and running away, and Vang admits shooting him several times and shooting him in the back. But that's no problem because it's o'key to kill a white man any day of the week.

:grr:

[NNN0LHI]

242. Are you nuts?

I have posted to this thread twice (three times now) and I have never suggested any of the insulting crap you have just suggested. Perhaps you would do well to consider a more sensible position like waiting to see what actually happened that night before rendering your personal guilty verdict. The guy may be everything you say his is and more but lets take a reasoned approach here and see what the investigation turns up. Deal?

Don

[Zynx]

280. I said there are many people who have.

There are a lot of people who posted in this thread that have said, "Those white people were probably racists and deserved it." or some variation thereof. My question is why do some on the DU think that way? This might be helpful to solving our electoral dilema. I'm not saying you said it.

[Swamp Rat]

243. Maybe Vang is a racist too

Lots of assumptions on this thread. x(

The most important thing is, we don't want to get distracted from the voter fraud and illegal war in Iraq by singular tragedies, as terrible as they might be.

This may even eclipse the Peterson trial.

[hansolsen]

250. Well said, Zynx. As a life long hunter I too am offended by the "hick"

slurs being thrown around in this thread. The anti-hunting, anti-gun wing of the Democratic Party is the single biggest impediment we face to winning national elections. This thread is a classic example of why we lost in 2004.

My hats off to all the DU members who contributed factual information on guns and hunting that helped keep this thread from veering off into lala land. Our work is cut out for us.

[Swede]

253. I cannot believe some of these post

They were country folks hunting therefore they deserved it. He wasn't white to he's truthful and innocent.

[bobbyboucher]

302. You guys got selective hearing.

It's a big thread, but so far I haven't heard anything but benefit of the doubt and questions regarding this whole weird incident.

[bobbyboucher]

300. Baloney.

Quit pointing out what you suspiciously perceive to be what the Repubes would likely sift out of this debate. You have no fucking idea what exactly happened out there in those woods and your naivete regarding the police in that area and the reports that have surfaced and all that stuff is suspect.

Quit making cases for the other side, especially with your cut and paste working overtime.

Park your hysteria.

[DoNotRefill]

315. Ah, yes.

It was the infamous Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that led to Vang confessing to the police that he shot 7 unarmed people after waiting for them in ambush.

Have you READ the PC statement?

[Name removed]

273. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Ganja Ninja]

282. At this point I would have to give him the benefit of doubt.

If I were faced down by a bunch of armed drunks out in the middle of nowhere and then one of them fired a shot at me. I might feel my life was in danger and take the fight to them. I can see it happening.

[mikedaul]

289. military history...

I am in no way trying to justify or defend Vang's actions, but I think the fact that he was ex military will come into play heavily here. The guy was a trained killer. I suspect (as has been mentioned already) that for whatever reason he felt his life was threatened and then proceeded to act as he was trained to do in such a situation (which is eliminate the threat).

[slackmaster]

292. The defendant deserves the benefit of the doubt

And so do the victims. Your conjecture that they were "a bunch of armed drunks" shows that you have a bias.

[Red State Rebel]

297. Have you read the police report?

Even Vang states only one person was armed. He actually chased down people and shot them in the back! There is absolutely no excuse for what happened.

[Boosterman]

312. guess you missed the part where only one of the victims was armed.

[progressivebydesign]

293. Damn. This is a wierd story...

I don't know what to think... I DO think that this guy has a violent past, and is prone to violence, so he apparently had little problem shooting people. BUT (and it's not a defense, cuz the guy is a murderer), I have no idea what it would be like to be outnumbered by (allegedly) angry, racist crowd of people, with only a gun to protect myself. If that part's true, then it does not excuse him, but it puts the story in a different light. I have family in the midwest, in an area of many immigrants of Vang's nationality. It is not a particularly chummy situation between the two groups. Before Vang started shooting these people called for back up from those at the cabin; I'd guess he is a violent, angry man, who was confronted and felt threatened. BAD combo.

And.. killing deers is mean and disgusting, and I find it all so ironic when hunters kill each other. We're speciesists.. our lives are much more important than other mammals, apparently. (p.s. I don't eat mammals).

[tom II]

294. AP reports possible connection to 2001 hunter slaying !

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5103053.html

Possible Vang connection to 2001 hunter slaying, detective says.
Associated Press
November 24, 2004

MILWAUKEE -- Authorities are looking into whether the man suspected of killing six deer hunters in northern Wisconsin this week was involved in the unsolved slaying of another deer hunter three years ago, a detective told a newspaper.

``I can tell you we have been in contact with authorities from Sawyer County to address that,'' Clark County Sheriff's Department Detective Kerry Kirn told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Tuesday.

Jim Southworth was shot to death Nov. 23, 2001, as he hunted on family land 10 miles east of Neillsville and Kirn said he had exchanged frequent calls this week with investigators in Sawyer County, where the six hunters were killed and two others wounded Sunday

This gets more and more weird!!!

[DoNotRefill]

295. So he's a possible serial killer as well as a mass-murderer.

I suppose the guy shot in 2001 was a racist too, right?

[slackmaster]

301. A drunken inbred redneck hick NRA member racist no doubt!

:freak:

[Name removed]

311. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbyboucher]

303. OJ's innocent! Vang killed Nicole.

And so it continues.

[DoNotRefill]

304. And if it turns up that there's a ballistic match...

from bullets recovered at both scenes, Vang will have been framed for both sets of shootings, right?

[bobbyboucher]

307. Quit enciting the mob.

Let this thing pan out for chrissakes. I'm not too certain of anything with regard to this story. Answer the following questions for me:

How long between the time of the shooting and when the authorities arrived at the scene?

How far was it from the camp to the crime scene?

[DoNotRefill]

308. Relevance?

eom

[Boosterman]

310. The people defending

this guy without evidence are exactly whats wrong with the democratic party atm. This guy shoots and kills 6 people. All the evidence to date is against him. He cries racism and many people are ready to defend him. Why? That attitude is why e lost the election IMO. Oddly enough if you change the color of the defendants skin and post the same story I bet there would be a lot of remarks about stupid rednecks.(ignoring the geographical location)

[stavka]

317. What evidence?

I have yet to hear anything beyond simple statements from the police, and they called off today's press conference...

I know six people are dead, I know a suspect is in custody and know adnauseum about his gun and the Laotions in the US great White North...that's pretty much all I know.

[Boosterman]

319. His own statement

He said only one of the hunters was armed. He said he shot them in the back. Now unless you have evidence the police are hiding something thats what we have to go on. Many here are ready to automatically condemn the victims. Why? only because of the color of their skin. Oh and btw are they all white?

[BUSHOUT]

321. Are you drinking koolaid?

Who are you talking about when you say "he"?

The shooter?

Please clarify.

And in answer to your inquiry, people are condemning some known behaviour of the victims.
A bunch of them were at a cabin, and jumped on their ATV's to come out and confront this lone hunter. Why? Why on earth was it neccessary for these people to all come out to ask one man to leave? Did the three hunters who happened upon him (with only one gun, apparently...another point of question for the victims) not feel capable of asking him to leave themselves? We only know that they called to inquire if he had a right to be there, we don't know if they called them out.
That APPEARS to me to be very strange, and I would not be surprised if those that hopped on the ATV's had alcohol in their blood.

As for condemnations, it appears you are wanting to condemn the shooter (the one who actually killed people, we don't know for sure if the others took shots or not) and nobody else.
Why? Because of the color of his skin? Cuts both ways, don't it?

You're making blanket condemnations of people here that aren't true. Step off a little.

[Boosterman]

325. Yes I am referring to the

shooter when I said he. Sorry I thought you would get it by inference. I am a white "redneck" college graduate. I also hunt on occasion. Been a few years but hey. There is no evidence to support this guy. Thats the shooter in case I lost ya. In case you missed it there were several posts above that basically condoned this mans actions. Read the whole thread. That was the reason for my posts. That and I am sick of being told I suck because I am from the south. You fricking northerners evidently dont even know how to read an electoral map. It was the mid west that was almost all republican.

/endrant

[BUSHOUT]

331. Show me where it says the SHOOTER said...

that only one of the hunters was armed and that he shot them in the back.

In case you're lost, you said the shooter said these things.

And might I also suggest you're not being told you suck because you're from the South.

[BUSHOUT]

323. As well, I don't care what you think is wrong with the democratic party nt

[Boosterman]

326. Yep

keep thinking that way. Keep losing elections. BTW how long have you been a democrat? Going on 18 years of elections for me. I take that back...I voted Nader the last two times because my state was going Bush.

[BUSHOUT]

332. Sure. I'm losing elections. Rightwingers always accuse

people on discussion forums of being responsible for lost elections because they don't agree with them.

I'm not interested in what YOU think lost democrats the election, and that means democrats will keep losing elections?

:wtf:

You really have a high opinion of yourself!
:7

Back up, you're the twerp who is accusing people on this board of condemning shooting victims and making the leap that that is the kind of thing that cost democrats the election. You don't belong here with your attitude of "don't say that....you can't say that!"

Take it back to freerepulsive.

[Boosterman]

334. Wow

You ramble a lot. Just going to say this...I didn't flame you. You reported me as a freeper I assume. Then you felt the need to tell me,via PM, I was going to be banned. I assume because I dared to disagree with you. Oh and read the police report. But maybe its been altered..../shiver.

[DoNotRefill]

338. You say:

"Rightwingers always accuse people on discussion forums of being responsible for lost elections because they don't agree with them.

I'm not interested in what YOU think lost democrats the election, and that means democrats will keep losing elections? "

You don't have to take our word for it. Read Clinton's 1995 SOTU speech. He says gun control cost us seats. Oh, wait, Clinton's a Rightwinger too, right??? Or, you could read what Donna Brasile said about gun control and the 2000 election, and how it cost Gore the Presidency by losing him his home state. Is she a RWer too?

[magdalena]

329. I'm not going to defend Vang because

at this point everything is just speculation. BUT, I do think this is an appropriate place to educate those that may not be from around here on how incredibly racist a frightening number of Wisco residents are toward the Hmong/Asian communities. Far worse than the hostility shown toward any other ethnic minority in this area IMHO.

Growing up I've witnessed several brutal beatings of Hmong children and countless other unprovoked hateful acts of varying degrees. I myself am half Asian (half German) and have personally felt threatened simply due to my ethnicity. I've even been told that I'm only "ok" because at least I'm only half "dirty gook" and have a German surname. Hell, even in my beloved, progressive Madison (on State Street no less) a man (probably a traumatized Vietnam vet) threatened to slit my throat because "all gooks should die". My Thai mom (quite possibly the most humble, compassionate, and benevolent person I know) has been plagued by death threats on the answering machine, probably from coworkers who thankfully lacked the balls to confront her in person.

Some people attribute all this deeply embedded Asian hate to the fact that in WWII many of the soldiers around here were deployed to Japan because of the predominant German heritage and the risk of having to fight family in Europe (I remember my late WWII vet grandpa lovingly referring to his flatulence as "Japaneezees"). Some say it's because of the large amount of Vietnam vets. Most likely it's both of these things coupled with the huge population of Hmong refugees that have taken up residence here in the great lakes area. On a brighter note, I will say that tolerance toward Asians has seemingly gotten better in the past few years as more immigrant children are growing up and taking on prominent roles in our communities. An initiative was launched this summer which has brought thousands more Hmong immigrants into Wisconsin.

Boosterman, in your post you asked:

"This guy shoots and kills 6 people. All the evidence to date is against him. He cries racism and many people are ready to defend him. Why?"

Hopefully something I've said might answer that for you. Again, I don't know how this particular Vang situation panned out, but if I found myself lost in the woods alone and was suddenly accosted by a group of white hunters I might become so terrified that I'd begin shooting too (thank goodness I don't own any firearms). Wouldn't make it right or just, but it's an honest analysis - and I'm sorry but attributing a mere question of possible racism in this case to whats wrong the democratic party and why we lost the election is fucked. I happen to think that examining all perspectives of a particular issue is what makes the democratic party so great.

In addition to the deaths of the 6 people, I fear there are going to be hundreds more victims of this tragedy found in the Asian community here. My heart goes out to all of them.

/end rant

[DoNotRefill]

339. You say:

"Again, I don't know how this particular Vang situation panned out, but if I found myself lost in the woods alone and was suddenly accosted by a group of white hunters I might become so terrified that I'd begin shooting too"

That's not what happened according to Vang's confession. He opened fire on them, tracked them down individually and shot them in the back, and then lay in wait for more to show up so that he could shoot them too. He even went as far as to take off his reversible jacket to hide the blaze orange, so that they couldn't see him before he ambushed them. That's not indicative of fear, that's indicative of premeditation. He was pissed off that he was run off for trespassing, and so he decided to kill as many people as he could, and only stopped when he got tired of killing.

[Liberaltarian]

335. INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty...not the other way around.

it's the idiots who want to give the guy the chair before any actual evidence comes out in court that are WRONG with this country.