Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/13/2005 11:38:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 11:44:41 PM EDT by TheKill]
What I want to know is, who wants to go with me and protest outside the courthouse with "Bring back the death penalty" signs?


The bold and underlining in the post are mine. Notice that the fucker fled as soon as someone actually fired back?



www.jsonline.com/news/state/sep05/355398.asp

Exchange was hostile, second survivor says
Hunter fired at Vang after being shot in shoulder
By TOM HELD
theld@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Sept. 13, 2005
Hayward - A second witness to the killings of six hunters last November painted a slightly more hostile picture Tuesday of their encounter with Chai Soua Vang, but corroborated earlier testimony that Vang was leaving the scene when he turned and fired at the group.

North Woods Shootings

Lauren Hesebeck said hunting companion Robert Crotteau angrily challenged Vang for being in his son's tree stand and laced his lecture with obscenities. Crotteau's son Joey may have momentarily stepped in front of Vang as the trespasser began to move away from the hunters who intercepted him on private property in southern Sawyer County, Hesebeck said.

"It may have appeared Joe was trying to block him," Hesebeck testified.

But the Rice Lake car salesman said Vang was 25 to 30 yards away when he stopped, turned and opened fire.

Vang, 36, is on trial on six counts of first-degree intentional homicide and three counts of attempted homicide. The truck driver from St. Paul, Minn., is expected to testify as early as Thursday.

Sawyer County Circuit Judge Norman Yackel told the jury members that they probably would begin deliberations Friday. The trial began Saturday

Hesebeck, 49, and Terry Willers, 48, both were wounded during Vang's initial assault and gave similar but not identical recountings of the events. Willers testified Monday.

Hesebeck deviated slightly from the statement he gave authorities hours after the shootings. He testified Tuesday that Willers, the only one in the group armed during the confrontation, did not return fire when Vang began shooting. In his statement, Hesebeck had said he believed Willers had fired back.

Vang has told authorities he shot at the group only after Willers fired a shot that hit 30 to 40 feet behind him.

Defense attorney Steven Kohn's limited cross-examination focused on specific terms and language used by the hunters after they first spotted Vang, then rode all-terrain vehicles to intercept him about 500 yards from their hunting cabin.

After first seeing Vang in the tree stand, Willers said, he radioed the cabin to report that he had directed Vang off the property and he was leaving. In a second call, he directed Crotteau and the others to a location where they could intercept him.

Kohn is expected to try to convince jurors that Vang felt he was under siege when Robert Crotteau and four others stopped him. He said earlier that the group had berated Vang with obscenities and racial slurs.

Hesebeck testified that Robert Crotteau swore at Vang and threatened to beat him and report him to the authorities if he caught the Hmong immigrant on his property again.

"You . . . are always on my property," Hesebeck recounted him saying.

comment by TheKill: I have lived in WI most of my life......the word they left out was most likely "Fuckers". If it had been "chinks" or other racial word, the paper WOULD report it.....that is the Defenses tack to try and get this piece of crap off the hook.

Crotteau, 42, stood about 4 feet from Vang while he lectured him, Hesebeck testified. The other six hunters stood nearby or remained on the all-terrain vehicles, he said.

The most gripping testimony focused on the horrific and chaotic moments after Vang unleashed a number of shots.

"We were like rats scrambling, trying to figure out what to do," Hesebeck said.

Willers testified that he dived into the brush for cover, then was paralyzed when Vang's second shot bore into the left side of his neck.

Hesebeck said he saw Willers on the ground, then quickly scanned the area for his companions. Dennis Drew, lying on the ground, said he had been gut shot. Mark Roidt was lying dead from a gunshot wound to the head.

Hesebeck said he then looked up to see Vang moving toward him around the side of a Yamaha Rhino. He fired two shots and missed as Hesebeck scrambled around the machine, then caught him in the shoulder with a third shot.

When he recovered, Hesebeck went to aid his friends.

He helped Willers try to stop the bleeding from his neck, then went to Drew, his brother-in-law.

"He asked me to give him the last rites," Hesebeck said. "He was praying. I don't know exactly what prayer, but he was praying."

Hesebeck said Vang returned to the area some time later and fired several more shots at him while he sought cover behind a clump of dirt. Hesebeck grabbed Willers' rifle and fired one shot at Vang, who then fled.
Hunters who remained around the cabin during the confrontation testified Tuesday about the frantic radio calls from their wounded friends, and their fears as they heard more and more gunshots. At one point, Robert Crotteau radioed to the group, imploring them to bring guns.
Vang has told investigators that he shot both Robert and Joey Crotteau as they ran through the woods, unarmed.

And despite the elder Crotteau's pleas, Allan Laski and Jessica Willers headed to the confrontation on an ATV, but without guns, the witnesses testified. Vang fatally shot both of them in the back as they passed him on a trail leading from the cabin.

Laski's son, Adam, said he was gathering gear at the cabin when he heard the shooting.

"I remember it sticking in my head . . . that many in a row didn't sound right to me," said Laski, a high school student.

He said his worst fears were confirmed when Carter Crotteau returned from assisting the victims.

"Carter was really frantic," Laski said. "He told me his dad was dead, his brother was dead, Jess was dead, my dad was dead and Denny was shot and Lauren was shot."

During the testimony, Crotteau's wife, Roidt's mother and several other victim relatives bowed their heads or held them in their hands.

The trial continues with testimony from medical experts today.


Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:51:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 12:53:56 AM EDT by OFFascist]
this is the part where they fucked up.


After first seeing Vang in the tree stand, Willers said, he radioed the cabin to report that he had directed Vang off the property and he was leaving. In a second call, he directed Crotteau and the others to a location where they could intercept him.


First one guy tells Vang to leave and Vang starts to do so, but then these other guys roll up on Vang and then that is when the shooting occurs shortly after.

Had they just let Vang leave in the first place then situation wouldnt have escalated.

Here is another article about the sitution that I found posted over at thehighroad.com.


Survivor testifies about fatal shootings in Sawyer County woods

By Robert Imrie
The Associated Press
Published September 12, 2005, 2:47 PM CDT


HAYWARD, Wis. -- One of two deer hunters who survived a shooting rampage that killed six others in the woods calmly told jurors Monday that a confrontation with a trespasser turned violent after the group threatened to report the man to authorities.

Terry Willers said no one shot at Chai Soua Vang or physically assaulted him before Vang started firing at the group Nov. 21 in some isolated northwestern Wisconsin woods.

The shootings occurred several minutes after Vang, wearing a camouflaged ski mask, told Willers he was sorry for trespassing in a deer stand on private land, Willers testified Monday, the second day of the trial in Sawyer County.

Vang, a 36-year-old Hmong immigrant and truck driver from St. Paul, Minn., is charged with six counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder. He faces mandatory life in prison if convicted.

Vang's attorney, Steven Kohn, said Vang came under a vicious verbal attack from the hunters who used profanities and racial slurs against him, and Vang felt frightened and under siege. Vang says he acted in self-defense after someone shot at him first.

Willers, whose 27-year-old daughter was killed, disputed that.

Willers testified he found Vang in the tree stand, asked him to leave and then gave him directions to public property.

Vang climbed from the stand and started to leave, Willers said.

As Vang walked away, Willers said he used a radio to call one of the property's owners, Robert Crotteau, at a nearby cabin.

``I radioed into the cabin and said I had a tree rat, and I chased him off the stand,'' Willers testified, indicating Vang was standing about 30 yards away. ``Bob said, 'I want to talk to him.'''

Crotteau drove up with other hunters on two all-terrain vehicles and angrily accused Vang of trespassing, Willers said.

The group unsuccessfully tried to get Vang to show some identification, then flipped over the hunting tag on his back to get his deer license number, said Willers, who traced the number in some dirt on an ATV.

Crotteau hollered to Vang the hunters got his license number and would report him to authorities, Willers testified. Vang was walking down a path when Willers testified he saw him crouch down, set a camouflaged bag on the ground and take the gun off his shoulder.

Willers testified he believed Vang was going to start shooting, so he took his gun from his shoulder and held it in front of him. ``I said, 'Don't you shoot at me, you (expletive)''' he said.

Willers said he took off running and dove to the ground behind a tree. He said he heard a bullet whistle past him, a familiar sound he heard before while hunting. He flipped the safety off his gun and prepared to shoot.

``A split second I felt a burning and felt a ripple through my body. I next thought about moving and I couldn't move,'' Willers said.

``I was thinking this was it.''

Willers, who was to resume testifying Monday afternoon, showed little emotion during the first hour of his testimony.

Willers showed jurors how Vang initially pointed his gun slightly down and away at him, and Willers said he pointed his gun slightly upward.

In other testimony, investigators said they found 14 spent shells in the woods -- 12 the day of the shooting and two more in December. Gerald Kotajarvi of the state crime laboratory testified the shells were of the same caliber of the gun later seized from Vang.

One shell was found within 15 feet of Willers' daughter, Kotajarvi said.

Paul Sogla, a special agent for the state Department of Justice, said gun shells and other evidence near Crotteau's son, Joseph, who was found about 500 feet from where the confrontation occurred, suggest the shooter was standing only 15 to 20 feet away from him at one point.

Kotajarvi said four rounds were found in Terry Willers' gun, which could hold five.

Killed were Robert Crotteau, 42; Joseph Crotteau, 20; Al Laski, 43; Mark Roidt, 28; Jessica Willers, 27; and Dennis Drew, 55, all of the Rice Lake area.

As the murder trial opened Monday, Sawyer County Circuit Judge Norman Yackel agreed to allow two photographers into the courtroom as long as they made less noise and took fewer photos. He imposed the ban on still photographers Saturday after Vang's attorneys complained about the camera noise.



of particular interest is the following.


Willers testified he found Vang in the tree stand, asked him to leave and then gave him directions to public property.

Vang climbed from the stand and started to leave, Willers said.

As Vang walked away, Willers said he used a radio to call one of the property's owners, Robert Crotteau, at a nearby cabin.

``I radioed into the cabin and said I had a tree rat, and I chased him off the stand,'' Willers testified, indicating Vang was standing about 30 yards away. ``Bob said, 'I want to talk to him.'''

Crotteau drove up with other hunters on two all-terrain vehicles and angrily accused Vang of trespassing, Willers said.

The group unsuccessfully tried to get Vang to show some identification, then flipped over the hunting tag on his back to get his deer license number, said Willers, who traced the number in some dirt on an ATV.

Crotteau hollered to Vang the hunters got his license number and would report him to authorities, Willers testified. Vang was walking down a path when Willers testified he saw him crouch down, set a camouflaged bag on the ground and take the gun off his shoulder.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:17:04 AM EDT
Because this happened in WI I expect that no jail time will be forthcoming. Temporary insanity and racial discrimination defenses are S.O.P. in this state. Makes me sick, but my bet is the shooter will see some psychiatric hospital time and then be released and the newspapers will de-emphasize the whole thing. Maybe, if there's enough National attention that the Governor is concerned about his image, a short token sentence will be given.

I won't go into the political graft and casino money and voter cheating that put our "gun hating" Governor and his buddies in office in the State Attorney General's office.

Ya... I know. Then why don't you move if you hate it so much. We're working on it.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:33:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 1:44:15 AM EDT by sandboxmedic]
Mistakes made all around. Whatever happened to an armed society is a polite society? Being anything but polite when guns are involved is inviting trouble; when he started leaving they should have let him go. Between the lot of them they could have come up with a pretty accurate description later if need be. What sort of numbskull goes to talk to trespassers/poachers without being armed then continues picking at the situation when he is leaving and even worse, what sort of numbskull hears shooting that they know isn't normal (after being told about an armed tresspasser) and doesn't bring their gun- remember the old saying about the most important thing to bring to a gunfight is a gun.

You have to wonder too whether the trespasser was nuts or whether he really felt threatened to single handedly engage that many people who may have been armed. I seem to recall reading that he had served in the Army so he should have had some idea about his odds.

Before I get slammed, I'm not saying the guy shouldn't get the death penalty if found guilty, I've just got a feeling there is more to this story than meets the eye- the stories you read seem to be changing and they are now admitting that they cursed him and grabbed at his clothing which they didn't initially. I'm wondering if it will come out that someone did fire a "warning shot". If that's the case, then that really changes things.

Just thinking out loud here....
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 2:30:10 AM EDT
I don't give a shit what they called him. "Sticks and stones...." It's no reason to murder 6 people. Do you think if a group of black guys called someone "whitey" or "honkey" that the individual would be justified in gunning them down? HELL NO!!! Then why should it be okay the other way around? Oh, wait, I forgot---everyone except whites have an excuse. This is Amerika the PC.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 2:39:18 AM EDT
I'm always amazed that people will "PUSH" an argument so far in a hunting situation where everybody is armed and tempers could lead to a tradgedy like this. It sounds like the victims were no different than most people. They threatend him to the point that he snapped?

A guy shot the ground beside my uncle once. Just because he was in some woods that weve all hunted our whole lives. This was after my uncle turned his back and was leaving.

I hope the stupid asshole gets the death penalty, He deserves it no matter what. All these lives ruined over something so stupid. When he shot the people on the ATV who were UNARMED he certainly earned the death penalty.

Hunting for me isn't anywhere near as fun as it used to be. All due to the posting of every little scrap of land. In a hollow where there are thousands of acres to hunt, some dumbasses leased about 13 acres in the middle of it and just made asses of themselves. They had the option to hunt the vast majority of ALL the hollow but spent all their time bitching at people coming through there. (there are SEVERAL ATV trails through it.

This whole incident was a terrible shame. Right or wrong you have to keep in mind that everybody is armed with high-powered rifles and that anybody shots fired could end up in a tradgedy like this one. You don't know anything about the person your confronting. keep that in mind.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 2:57:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By COZ:

I hope the stupid asshole gets the death penalty, He deserves it no matter what.



The only death penalty he'll be getting is if they let him go and he ever tries hunting in wisconsin again.

Unfortunately, there is no state sanctioned "death penalty".
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:15:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:21:16 AM EDT
So, is there a law in Wisconsin that says you can shoot everyone in a group of people if someone says something that you don't like?

I don't think we have that in Illinois.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:35:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sandboxmedic:
Mistakes made all around. Whatever happened to an armed society is a polite society? Being anything but polite when guns are involved is inviting trouble; when he started leaving they should have let him go. Between the lot of them they could have come up with a pretty accurate description later if need be. What sort of numbskull goes to talk to trespassers/poachers without being armed then continues picking at the situation when he is leaving and even worse, what sort of numbskull hears shooting that they know isn't normal (after being told about an armed tresspasser) and doesn't bring their gun- remember the old saying about the most important thing to bring to a gunfight is a gun.

You have to wonder too whether the trespasser was nuts or whether he really felt threatened to single handedly engage that many people who may have been armed. I seem to recall reading that he had served in the Army so he should have had some idea about his odds.



Considering that ONE person he shot was armed, I don't see how on EARTH you could make such a statement.



Before I get slammed, I'm not saying the guy shouldn't get the death penalty if found guilty, I've just got a feeling there is more to this story than meets the eye- the stories you read seem to be changing and they are now admitting that they cursed him and grabbed at his clothing which they didn't initially. I'm wondering if it will come out that someone did fire a "warning shot". If that's the case, then that really changes things.

Just thinking out loud here....



Think more.

Don't drink the lawyer Kool-Aid.

This guy was trespassing. It was most likely not the FIRST time he had been trespassing. Care to guess how seriously the Sherriff's department takes trespassing calls during hunting season?

Further, he opened up on a group of people who were unarmed. Chasing an unarmed man around a 4 wheeler and shooting him. Then shooting two other people who were unarmed on 4 wheelers.

This idiot decided to play Rambo and ought to suffer the death penalty.

If there was more than one shot fired out of the ONE RIFLE posessed by the SIX people who were LEGALLY on the land, we would have heard it from the defense by now. Instead, there appears to have only been a single shot fired in self defense which seems to be the only reason there were any survivors at all.

I don't give a damn what nasty names someone might have called him. People have called me a lot of nasty names too, but I haven't killed any of them.

This was murder. A heinous case of murder, and the bastard ought to fry for it.

It never ceases to amaze me that no matter what behavior is shown on ARFCOM, someone comes along to defend it.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:36:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Oslow:
So, is there a law in Wisconsin that says you can shoot everyone in a group of people if someone says something that you don't like?

I don't think we have that in Illinois.



Or Virginia.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:40:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By COZ:
I'm always amazed that people will "PUSH" an argument so far in a hunting situation where everybody is armed and tempers could lead to a tradgedy like this. It sounds like the victims were no different than most people. They threatend him to the point that he snapped?

A guy shot the ground beside my uncle once. Just because he was in some woods that weve all hunted our whole lives. This was after my uncle turned his back and was leaving.

I hope the stupid asshole gets the death penalty, He deserves it no matter what. All these lives ruined over something so stupid. When he shot the people on the ATV who were UNARMED he certainly earned the death penalty.

Hunting for me isn't anywhere near as fun as it used to be. All due to the posting of every little scrap of land. In a hollow where there are thousands of acres to hunt, some dumbasses leased about 13 acres in the middle of it and just made asses of themselves. They had the option to hunt the vast majority of ALL the hollow but spent all their time bitching at people coming through there. (there are SEVERAL ATV trails through it.

This whole incident was a terrible shame. Right or wrong you have to keep in mind that everybody is armed with high-powered rifles and that anybody shots fired could end up in a tradgedy like this one. You don't know anything about the person your confronting. keep that in mind.



There has been absolutely NO evidence that any sort of shot was fired at this idiot. The only evidence of it offered by the defense is that the guy now says he "heard" someone shoot at him. Considering that this same man gunned down a bunch of unarmed people scrambling for their lives, I hardly consider his witness to be of a reliable nature.

Crimony.

If you folks had to spend your hunting season running people off your land who tear it up with irresponsible ATV riding, drinking, smoking (and starting fires that get out of control) and generally messing up the hunting season for you and those you want on YOUR LAND, then perhaps you could understand why their patience might be thin.

But someone who uses a swear worr hardly equates to a lethal threat.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:38:31 AM EDT

This whole incident was a terrible shame. Right or wrong you have to keep in mind that everybody is armed with high-powered rifles and that anybody shots fired could end up in a tradgedy like this one. You don't know anything about the person your confronting. keep that in mind.



Just one point - this was not a "tragedy." It was a murdering attack.

Nothing personal COZ but it really pisses me off when the Libs call 9-11-01 a "tragedy." It was a f**king attack.

CMOS
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:45:26 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:52:58 AM EDT

Considering that ONE person he shot was armed, I don't see how on EARTH you could make such a statement.


I'm not sure which part you are referring to- the part about confronting a hunter while unarmed yourself, the part about continuing to escalate a situation, or the part about going towards a gunfight without a gun. There were how many of them total and only one person has a gun on them, especially if they've had similar problems in the past? This is not something that most of us, on this board at least, would do. I don't know about Wis. but where I am from over half the hunters you come across are also carrying a handgun too.

My statement about him being nuts or feeling threatened was in regards to the fact that you either have to really nuts or really desperate to take on a handful of people who "may" be armed by yourself. Again- a little sense tells you that the odds are not in your favor and its likely suicidal and sane people do not go on shooting rampages.

And yes, I have had problems with tresspassers on multiple occasions and I do know how the police respond to it. I also know that when I asked someone to leave I did so politely, even those I had seen before, and I never threatened them. The only time they didn't leave I turned and walked away- there is no excuse for getting into a shooting match over tresspassing. When I walked away they left quickly; probably assuming (correctly) that I was calling the police. I also had a 1911 concealed on my side for my own protection.


It never ceases to amaze me that no matter what behavior is shown on ARFCOM, someone comes along to defend it.


Reread the post before you blow a gasket- I never defended him- I just questioned the logic behind the other hunters actions, what was going on in the shooter's head as well as what else happened. Something about the story just sounds funny to me; tresspassing alone just doesn't justify the actions of any of these people and I'd like to know what all transpired. It does indeed sound like he deserves the death penalty (something I believe in strongly), I'm just curious as to the psychology behind the events.

Events like this are one of the reasons I don't hunt much anymore, there are a lot of crazies out there.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:02:07 AM EDT
Vang is no good, just kill him and get it over with. Are there any Asian/PacificIslander-American groups protesting on Vang's behalf up there?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:08:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
Vang is no good, just kill him and get it over with. Are there any Asian/PacificIslander-American groups protesting on Vang's behalf up there?


I'm chinese and I haven't heard of any.
Hopefully the rest of the asians know to stay away from this and not try to defend the guy solely cause he's asian. Unlike some other "groups"
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:18:21 AM EDT
Once he gets to jail someone will kill his ass.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:48:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By akethan:
Once he gets to jail someone will kill his ass.



Yep, remember Jeffrey Dahmer?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:04:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By twonami:
I'm chinese and I haven't heard of any. Hopefully the rest of the asians know to stay away from this and not try to defend the guy solely cause he's asian. Unlike some other "groups"

Whew, that's good to hear!
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:19:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sandboxmedic:
I'm not sure which part you are referring to- the part about confronting a hunter while unarmed yourself, the part about continuing to escalate a situation, or the part about going towards a gunfight without a gun. There were how many of them total and only one person has a gun on them, especially if they've had similar problems in the past? This is not something that most of us, on this board at least, would do. I don't know about Wis. but where I am from over half the hunters you come across are also carrying a handgun too.



I am talking about the murdering sack of slime in this story who shot SEVERAL people despite the fact that only ONE of them was armed, and even then there is no OBJECTIVE evidence that the single armed person posed a REASONABLE threat to life and limb.

The guy was just plain murdering people.




My statement about him being nuts or feeling threatened was in regards to the fact that you either have to really nuts or really desperate to take on a handful of people who "may" be armed by yourself. Again- a little sense tells you that the odds are not in your favor and its likely suicidal and sane people do not go on shooting rampages.



He wasn't taking on a bunch of armed people. He was slaughtering a bunch of unarmed people. The "odds" never entered into it. He was gunning them down like sheep.




And yes, I have had problems with tresspassers on multiple occasions and I do know how the police respond to it. I also know that when I asked someone to leave I did so politely, even those I had seen before, and I never threatened them. The only time they didn't leave I turned and walked away- there is no excuse for getting into a shooting match over tresspassing. When I walked away they left quickly; probably assuming (correctly) that I was calling the police. I also had a 1911 concealed on my side for my own protection.



I am sure the property owners have asked lots of people politely.

But even if you decided to get rude one day with your concealed 1911, the moron who would shoot you and five of your unarmed friends while on your property would be completely and utterly in the wrong.




Reread the post before you blow a gasket- I never defended him- I just questioned the logic behind the other hunters actions, what was going on in the shooter's head as well as what else happened. Something about the story just sounds funny to me; tresspassing alone just doesn't justify the actions of any of these people and I'd like to know what all transpired. It does indeed sound like he deserves the death penalty (something I believe in strongly), I'm just curious as to the psychology behind the events.



Idiot kills 3 people and wounds others because he felt like doing it.

That's your psychology.

Looking for the VICTIMS of this to have some of the blame is insane.



Events like this are one of the reasons I don't hunt much anymore, there are a lot of crazies out there.



Indeed.

But rest easy in knowing that if a trespasser shoots you and then shoots your family as they try to escape, someone on ARFCOM will wonder what YOU did to make it happen.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:28:14 AM EDT

Honestly, I really have to question why in the hell these guys ganged up on a gun carrying trespasser unarmed? Isn't that like taking boxing gloves to a gun fight? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this POS Vang, but I am amazed at what happened. I'll wager if Vang had seen a bunch of guns he would not have opened fire. Classic case of armed vs unarmed. Or am I missing something?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:31:38 AM EDT
Hang him.

If it had been a white man...a "bubba" that had executed a like number of Hmong, blacks, latinos or any other "victim group", that story would be fucking plastered all over the news ever day and a great host of libs would be screaming for justice.

Frankly, I could not care less whether or not the dead were bullies and they insulted him...or even threatened to kick his ass. He is a murdering monster and he deserves the harshest possible sentence.

What REALLY pissed the prick off was that they made him lose face.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:32:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sandboxmedic:
tresspassing alone just doesn't justify the actions of any of these people



What in the pluperfect hell are you talking about? Trespassing doesn't justify an instruction to leave the property? It doesn't justify an effort to identify the criminal? It doesn't justify admonishing the criminal not to repeat his crime? Again, what the hell are you talking about?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:36:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ThirtyCal_FAL:
Honestly, I really have to question why in the hell these guys ganged up on a gun carrying trespasser unarmed? Isn't that like taking boxing gloves to a gun fight? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this POS Vang, but I am amazed at what happened. I'll wager if Vang had seen a bunch of guns he would not have opened fire. Classic case of armed vs unarmed. Or am I missing something?



Yes, you are missing something.

Most people do not approach a person trespassing during hunting season as if they are about to engage in a life or death struggle with the sociopath. They didn't approach him with any violent intent.

And he gunned them down because of it.

How far have we slipped as a society when we say that people on their OWN property trying to get a trespasser to move along were stupid for not showing up prepared for world war III?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:39:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By sandboxmedic:
tresspassing alone just doesn't justify the actions of any of these people



What in the pluperfect hell are you talking about? Trespassing doesn't justify an instruction to leave the property? It doesn't justify an effort to identify the criminal? It doesn't justify admonishing the criminal not to repeat his crime? Again, what the hell are you talking about?



No, no, FLA.

You are being reactionary.

Clearly they should have left well enough alone like reasonable people.

After all, if someone breaks into your home and is sitting at your table and eating your food, you should just leave well enough alone and walk away quietly. You shouldn't be at all upset, shouldn't demand to know what in blue hell he is doing on property he knows is not his, etc.

And when he kills you, your son, and your wife, as you die you should understand that this was all your fault in the first place.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:47:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 6:54:51 AM EDT by DuBri]
Three sides to every story guy. None of us were there. For some reason I have a feeling that more went on here than any of us will ever know. Lets say for whatever reason you are white and end up in a confrontation with a group of armed males of another race. At some point they do something to threaten your life, and when the smoke clears you are the one still alive with the majority of them dead or wounded, due in part to the fact that maybe you go to the range more than they do. I would expect a shitstorm, and I am sure as hell the survivors would twist the story to make you some kind of psychopath. Just playing the devils advocate here.

Just think about it, semi auto SKS or not who in their right mind would start a shootout with 6+ armed hunters. Sounds pretty suicidal to me, unless you felt you were going to die one way or another.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:50:24 AM EDT
Interesting, I watch the 6:00 news every evening. Not one mention of this on the news here in the East at all. Now if it was a White guy who shot an "asian" type I'm sure it would have been the lead story every night!
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:55:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 6:56:23 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By DuBri:
Three sides to every story guy. None of us were there. For some reason I have a feeling that more went on here than any of us will ever know. Lets say for whatever reason you are white and end up in a confrontation with a group of armed males of another race.



And lets say that Grandma has balls...Then she would be Grandpa....

This idiot did not confront a group of armed males from another race. He was "confronted" by a group of people with one rifle among them who made no threatening moves with that rifle BY THE IDIOTS OWN ADMISSION until he heard this "shot" as he was LEAVING the area. He then shot or tried to shoot EVERYONE in that group, armed or not.

And then he shot two people heading AWAY from him off their ATVs because....well...I guess they were racists too.



At some point they do something to threaten your life, and when the smoke clears you are the one still alive with the majority of them dead or wounded, due in part to the fact that maybe you go to the range more than they do. I would expect a shitstorm, and I am sure as hell the survivors would twist the story to make you some kind of psychopath. Just playing the devils advocate here.



Why?

There is not ONE OBJECTIVE FACT THAT SUPPORTS THE MURDERER'S CLAIMS OR STATEMENTS OF THE EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ANY OF THE PEOPLE HE SHOT POSED ANY KIND OF THREAT TO HIM UNTIL AFTER HE STARTED SLAUGHTERING THEM.

To use the scenario generically:

Say you are trespassing on someone else's property and a group of the owners tell you to leave. They call you a dirty name. As you are leaving you think you hear a shot, so you turn and shoot the one armed man of the group. As the rest of them try to run, you gun them all down too. Then as you are leaving you see two friends coming to help, notice that they are also not armed, and then decide to shoot them too....

THAT is the situation we have here. NOT what you described.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:02:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Oslow:
So, is there a law in Wisconsin that says you can shoot everyone in a group of people if someone says something that you don't like?

I don't think we have that in Illinois.



Or Virginia.




Or Missouri.

When this first started I wondered if the property owners didn't get a little threatning but as details emerged it became clear this maniac just started shooting at anything he saw cause they made him mad. Fuck him, he deserves to fry. I don't give a blue fuck what slurs or unfriendly words were used. Unless he was confronted by unlawful deadly force from all those present he's nothing more than a murderer, plain and simple.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:45:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By ThirtyCal_FAL:
Honestly, I really have to question why in the hell these guys ganged up on a gun carrying trespasser unarmed? Isn't that like taking boxing gloves to a gun fight? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this POS Vang, but I am amazed at what happened. I'll wager if Vang had seen a bunch of guns he would not have opened fire. Classic case of armed vs unarmed. Or am I missing something?



Yes, you are missing something.

Most people do not approach a person trespassing during hunting season as if they are about to engage in a life or death struggle with the sociopath. They didn't approach him with any violent intent.

And he gunned them down because of it.

How far have we slipped as a society when we say that people on their OWN property trying to get a trespasser to move along were stupid for not showing up prepared for world war III?



I'll say it right now, they were dumb as hell for confronting an ARMED tresspasser on thier property, whithout thinking that maybe just maybe there could be problems.

Standard SOP on my buddy's land for tresspassers, armed or unarmed:
1. No one EVER confronts a tresspasser alone and unarmed, even if said tresspasser looks to be unarmed. If you are up there alone, you call the neighbor on the radio, he will back you up, in the event that the neighbor is not around, you call the Sheriff's dept and wait on them to arive before confronting.
2. If armed the tresspasser is asked to CLEAR THIER WEAPON and make it safe. They are asked only once, the second time it is a demand, this is done for OUR SAFETY, because we do not know your intentions. We have only had problem with one person in regards to this and he was an asshole from the get go.
3. You always take an FRS/GMRS radio with. We have a system in place with one of the neighbors for if were up there alone or if we need assitance from police, we call him on the radio, he calls the cops for us. If we are alone, we call the neighbor to confront the tresspasser with us as stated above.
4.If the person is truely lost we ask them where they are trying to get to and we give them the most direct route off the property in the direction that they need to go to. The biggest problem is that all the land around my buddy's place is private land, so most folks are not "lost".

We go into the situation the same way LE goes into a traffic stop, assuming that this person IS a threat untill otherwise verified. To do anything else is to invite disaster, and in this case, it did lead to a very serious and sad situation.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:47:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 7:52:11 AM EDT by sandboxmedic]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By sandboxmedic:
tresspassing alone just doesn't justify the actions of any of these people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





What in the pluperfect hell are you talking about? Trespassing doesn't justify an instruction to leave the property? It doesn't justify an effort to identify the criminal? It doesn't justify admonishing the criminal not to repeat his crime? Again, what the hell are you talking about?



Trespassing doesn't warrent becoming confrontational with an armed individual that you know nothing about (i.e. in this case his homicidal tendencies). Being mad yes, telling them to leave yes, wanting their info yes, grabbing at them no (again bad move against an armed individual that you know nothing about).

I think DuBri is saying the same thing I am here. SC doesn't allow this sort of activity either however the law states that once a person is no longer a threat you must break off the confrontation and they obviously continued on with their activities. While you don't have a duty to retreat on your own property, prudence is often the better part of valor. As Photoman noted, there are smarter ways to approach the situation. Trust me, I get furious when folks trespass, especially when they break glass that I or the dogs may later get cut on.

John Wayne777 I guess you're just living up to the name. I suppose your priorities are different than mine and you can call me what you want for it, but my first responsibility is to take care of myself, my next responsibilty is to take care of my family. Continuing a confrontation by chasing a known armed man with my fourwheeler is just not prudent in my book. There's a time to fight and a time to walk away- perhaps you should read The Art of War.

I'll not engage in this discussion any further as you obviously fail to see past the right and wrong aspect of it. In your anger, disgust, whatever, you have failed to see that I am not saying the shooter was justified but rather that I am curious as to the rest of the story. If proven guilty of murder, which he certainly appears to be guilty of, then by all means put him to death. Have a nice night.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 9:34:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 9:36:41 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By sandboxmedic:
Trespassing doesn't warrent becoming confrontational with an armed individual that you know nothing about (i.e. in this case his homicidal tendencies). Being mad yes, telling them to leave yes, wanting their info yes, grabbing at them no (again bad move against an armed individual that you know nothing about).



That is assuming that the people did any such thing, which is hardly clear from accounts.



I think DuBri is saying the same thing I am here. SC doesn't allow this sort of activity either however the law states that once a person is no longer a threat you must break off the confrontation and they obviously continued on with their activities.



No, this is where you foul up.

The trespasser became a threat when he started shooting and did not cease to be a threat until he had shot everyone. Nobody gave him chase. He chased THEM.



John Wayne777 I guess you're just living up to the name. I suppose your priorities are different than mine and you can call me what you want for it, but my first responsibility is to take care of myself, my next responsibilty is to take care of my family. Continuing a confrontation by chasing a known armed man with my fourwheeler is just not prudent in my book. There's a time to fight and a time to walk away- perhaps you should read The Art of War.



You have completely missed the story.

The people on the 4 wheelers were NOT giving chase. They were heading to a call made by their friends and had PASSED the trespasser BY COMPLETELY, whereupon he took it upon himself to shoot them dead. These people had no idea what was transpiring until they felt the bullets from this idiot's SKS hit them in the back.



I'll not engage in this discussion any further as you obviously fail to see past the right and wrong aspect of it. In your anger, disgust, whatever, you have failed to see that I am not saying the shooter was justified but rather that I am curious as to the rest of the story. If proven guilty of murder, which he certainly appears to be guilty of, then by all means put him to death. Have a nice night.



That is the point: There IS no "rest of the story". The story is this idiot was trespassing, might have gotten called a nasty name, may or may not have been touched, began to leave the scene, then turned and opened fire on a bunch of unarmed people. When exiting the scene of his massacre, he saw two people on 4 wheelers heading AWAY from him, and he decided to kill them too.

THAT is the story.

Period.

There is no more to it.

This guy is a murdering, scum-sucking weasel who killed a bunch of people without cause or compassion, and he ought to be burned at the stake. There IS no more to the story. It is in no way the fault of the victims that this homicidal maniac killed them.

THAT is the WHOLE STORY.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 9:42:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
I'll say it right now, they were dumb as hell for confronting an ARMED tresspasser on thier property, whithout thinking that maybe just maybe there could be problems.

Standard SOP on my buddy's land for tresspassers, armed or unarmed:
1. No one EVER confronts a tresspasser alone and unarmed, even if said tresspasser looks to be unarmed. If you are up there alone, you call the neighbor on the radio, he will back you up, in the event that the neighbor is not around, you call the Sheriff's dept and wait on them to arive before confronting.
2. If armed the tresspasser is asked to CLEAR THIER WEAPON and make it safe. They are asked only once, the second time it is a demand, this is done for OUR SAFETY, because we do not know your intentions. We have only had problem with one person in regards to this and he was an asshole from the get go.
3. You always take an FRS/GMRS radio with. We have a system in place with one of the neighbors for if were up there alone or if we need assitance from police, we call him on the radio, he calls the cops for us. If we are alone, we call the neighbor to confront the tresspasser with us as stated above.
4.If the person is truely lost we ask them where they are trying to get to and we give them the most direct route off the property in the direction that they need to go to. The biggest problem is that all the land around my buddy's place is private land, so most folks are not "lost".

We go into the situation the same way LE goes into a traffic stop, assuming that this person IS a threat untill otherwise verified. To do anything else is to invite disaster, and in this case, it did lead to a very serious and sad situation.



Treating a person as a threat until proven otherwise is also a good way to get yourself charged by the police for various infractions.

It is not as simple as all that.

I personally go about armed all the time. And though I find it distasteful in the extreme, I am also prepared to kill anyone who is not my family or friend should they force me to take such action.

There are few decent people on this planet who have made such a commitment or that even realize such a commitment must be made to survive such an incident.

That doesn't make such people stupid. Like my buddy, a Vietnam combat veteran, who thinks that his .45 is enough protection when running off trespassers, they are just ill informed about the depths to which some human beings will stoop. Very few people are prepared to deal with "otherhuman" as Walt Rauch calls them.


Link Posted: 9/14/2005 10:03:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DuBri:
Three sides to every story guy. None of us were there. For some reason I have a feeling that more went on here than any of us will ever know. Lets say for whatever reason you are white and end up in a confrontation with a group of armed males of another race. At some point they do something to threaten your life, and when the smoke clears you are the one still alive with the majority of them dead or wounded, due in part to the fact that maybe you go to the range more than they do. I would expect a shitstorm, and I am sure as hell the survivors would twist the story to make you some kind of psychopath. Just playing the devils advocate here.

Just think about it, semi auto SKS or not who in their right mind would start a shootout with 6+ armed hunters. Sounds pretty suicidal to me, unless you felt you were going to die one way or another.



+1

Everyone will have a better idea of what really happened at the conclusion of the trial.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 10:05:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By photoman:
I'll say it right now, they were dumb as hell for confronting an ARMED tresspasser on thier property, whithout thinking that maybe just maybe there could be problems.

Standard SOP on my buddy's land for tresspassers, armed or unarmed:
1. No one EVER confronts a tresspasser alone and unarmed, even if said tresspasser looks to be unarmed. If you are up there alone, you call the neighbor on the radio, he will back you up, in the event that the neighbor is not around, you call the Sheriff's dept and wait on them to arive before confronting.
2. If armed the tresspasser is asked to CLEAR THIER WEAPON and make it safe. They are asked only once, the second time it is a demand, this is done for OUR SAFETY, because we do not know your intentions. We have only had problem with one person in regards to this and he was an asshole from the get go.
3. You always take an FRS/GMRS radio with. We have a system in place with one of the neighbors for if were up there alone or if we need assitance from police, we call him on the radio, he calls the cops for us. If we are alone, we call the neighbor to confront the tresspasser with us as stated above.
4.If the person is truely lost we ask them where they are trying to get to and we give them the most direct route off the property in the direction that they need to go to. The biggest problem is that all the land around my buddy's place is private land, so most folks are not "lost".

We go into the situation the same way LE goes into a traffic stop, assuming that this person IS a threat untill otherwise verified. To do anything else is to invite disaster, and in this case, it did lead to a very serious and sad situation.



Treating a person as a threat until proven otherwise is also a good way to get yourself charged by the police for various infractions.

It is not as simple as all that.

I personally go about armed all the time. And though I find it distasteful in the extreme, I am also prepared to kill anyone who is not my family or friend should they force me to take such action.

There are few decent people on this planet who have made such a commitment or that even realize such a commitment must be made to survive such an incident.

That doesn't make such people stupid. Like my buddy, a Vietnam combat veteran, who thinks that his .45 is enough protection when running off trespassers, they are just ill informed about the depths to which some human beings will stoop. Very few people are prepared to deal with "otherhuman" as Walt Rauch calls them.





According to the Sherrif's Department, it is perfectly acceptable. When somone is on your private property and armed and you don't know them, they are a potential threat. WE are within our rights to ask them to clear their guns for OUR safety. When they are biligerant from the get go, it gives even more reason to treat them as a threat. You can treat them as a threat and not have a weapon pointed at them, it's not like we come up on the guns drawn/pointed. WE are polite, until they no longer are, when we contact them. However not treating them as a possible threat can put you in a position where you can be severly hurt or killed by that person/s as was the case with this incident.

There is nothin at all the sherrif can or will charge me with for my actions in those situations, the deputies have made that perfectly clear to us everytime that has happened.
Anyone you don't know who is on you property without premission and armed IS a potential threat until you can verify otherwise. And you treat them that way till you can verify otherwise.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 10:18:06 AM EDT
As an aside - and with no disrespect intended- where there large, slow white people or sumthing???

IIRC, Mr. Hmong got 8 hits out of a 10 shots with an SKS.

6 fatal hits, and two injuries with a 10 shot SKS......
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 10:20:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 10:24:35 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
As an aside - and with no disrespect intended- where there large, slow white people or sumthing???

IIRC, Mr. Hmong got 8 hits out of a 10 shots with an SKS.

6 fatal hits, and two injuries with a 10 shot SKS......




Actually he fired about 20rds total. Read the PC statment. he re--loaded the mag at least once, and it wasn't a SKS. It was a Saiga AK sporter, Saiga does not make an SKS according to thier own website.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 10:30:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DuBri:
Three sides to every story guy. None of us were there. For some reason I have a feeling that more went on here than any of us will ever know. Lets say for whatever reason you are white and end up in a confrontation with a group of armed males of another race. At some point they do something to threaten your life, and when the smoke clears you are the one still alive with the majority of them dead or wounded, due in part to the fact that maybe you go to the range more than they do. I would expect a shitstorm, and I am sure as hell the survivors would twist the story to make you some kind of psychopath. Just playing the devils advocate here.

Just think about it, semi auto SKS or not who in their right mind would start a shootout with 6+ armed hunters. Sounds pretty suicidal to me, unless you felt you were going to die one way or another.



Are you REALLY that clueless...or just a silly ?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 10:56:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By DuBri:
Three sides to every story guy. None of us were there. For some reason I have a feeling that more went on here than any of us will ever know. Lets say for whatever reason you are white and end up in a confrontation with a group of armed males of another race. At some point they do something to threaten your life, and when the smoke clears you are the one still alive with the majority of them dead or wounded, due in part to the fact that maybe you go to the range more than they do. I would expect a shitstorm, and I am sure as hell the survivors would twist the story to make you some kind of psychopath. Just playing the devils advocate here.

Just think about it, semi auto SKS or not who in their right mind would start a shootout with 6+ armed hunters. Sounds pretty suicidal to me, unless you felt you were going to die one way or another.



Are you REALLY that clueless...or just a silly ?




Was wondering the same thing myself - apparantly, DuBri missed the part of the story where only ONE of the hunters was armed - but hey, it's more convenient to an agenda to drum up hypothetical(and false) situations to defend a murdering scumbag trespasser for some people...


Send this murdering scumbag trespasser straight to hell, I say...



- georgestrings
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:09:12 AM EDT
But but but the eeeeevil white boys hwurt his wittle feewings.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:34:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
As an aside - and with no disrespect intended- where there large, slow white people or sumthing???

IIRC, Mr. Hmong got 8 hits out of a 10 shots with an SKS.

6 fatal hits, and two injuries with a 10 shot SKS......




Actually he fired about 20rds total. Read the PC statment. he re--loaded the mag at least once, and it wasn't a SKS. It was a Saiga AK sporter, Saiga does not make an SKS according to thier own website.




Thanx for clarifying.

I thought they originally said he had an SKS.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:55:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By photoman:
I'll say it right now, they were dumb as hell for confronting an ARMED tresspasser on thier property, whithout thinking that maybe just maybe there could be problems.

Standard SOP on my buddy's land for tresspassers, armed or unarmed:
1. No one EVER confronts a tresspasser alone and unarmed, even if said tresspasser looks to be unarmed. If you are up there alone, you call the neighbor on the radio, he will back you up, in the event that the neighbor is not around, you call the Sheriff's dept and wait on them to arive before confronting.
2. If armed the tresspasser is asked to CLEAR THIER WEAPON and make it safe. They are asked only once, the second time it is a demand, this is done for OUR SAFETY, because we do not know your intentions. We have only had problem with one person in regards to this and he was an asshole from the get go.
3. You always take an FRS/GMRS radio with. We have a system in place with one of the neighbors for if were up there alone or if we need assitance from police, we call him on the radio, he calls the cops for us. If we are alone, we call the neighbor to confront the tresspasser with us as stated above.
4.If the person is truely lost we ask them where they are trying to get to and we give them the most direct route off the property in the direction that they need to go to. The biggest problem is that all the land around my buddy's place is private land, so most folks are not "lost".

We go into the situation the same way LE goes into a traffic stop, assuming that this person IS a threat untill otherwise verified. To do anything else is to invite disaster, and in this case, it did lead to a very serious and sad situation.



Treating a person as a threat until proven otherwise is also a good way to get yourself charged by the police for various infractions.

It is not as simple as all that.

I personally go about armed all the time. And though I find it distasteful in the extreme, I am also prepared to kill anyone who is not my family or friend should they force me to take such action.

There are few decent people on this planet who have made such a commitment or that even realize such a commitment must be made to survive such an incident.

That doesn't make such people stupid. Like my buddy, a Vietnam combat veteran, who thinks that his .45 is enough protection when running off trespassers, they are just ill informed about the depths to which some human beings will stoop. Very few people are prepared to deal with "otherhuman" as Walt Rauch calls them.





"Be courteous, be polite, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

Any time I'm in a strange situation around strange people who may or may not pose a threat to me, I assume that they may be dangerous and act accordingly. Most of the time this leads me to unass the area. If I can't, then I prepare to defend myself if necessary.

So far, it's worked. No life or death struggles (minus the one attempt on my life before I became situationally aware) and no major confrontations.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:58:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 11:59:38 AM EDT by Gamma762]
I've been trying to come up with a way to express this since this story came out. Details from the trial only reinforce my opinion...

I grew up in a rural area as a farm kid. I've seen both sides of this situation... no I didn't take over anyone's tree stand, but was angrily accused of tresspassing a couple times (I was in the right). I've also confronted numerous simple tresspassers and "out of place" hunters. I can tell you that from almost any angle, the way the landowners handled this situation could not have been any worse.

First off, if you're dealing with armed people, be polite. Not that you can't get your point across but there is no need to create additional stress for everyone. Second, it's perfectly fine to talk to him, ask him to leave, escort him off the property... or to hold him for law enforcement if that's your bent. But you DON'T ask him to leave and then come charging up on 4 wheelers and surround him so that you can "talk" to him. It's reasonable in the circumstances to believe that everyone was armed (as it turns out, they weren't) and quite frankly this would put any reasonable person in fear for their life. It's actually worse than I had originally envisioned, according to the testimony if they possibly manhandled him, and a minimum were within close contact distance, to flip over the hunting tag on his back (which would be assault). There appears to have been a disparity of force situation which was escalated radically, with no apparent nonviolent escape route for Mr. Vang. I also really wonder if and how intoxicated the landowners were... I've seen enough of these "hunting" parties to know how things often are.

This really strikes me as something similar to "road rage"... let's say that Mr. A's car has a fender bender with Mr. B's car. Clearly Mr A's fault. If Mr. B gets on his cell phone and gets 5 of his friends to come back him up while he takes out his anger on Mr A... bad things are going to ensue. If Mr A is armed the outcome I think would look about like this case.

I don't know exactly what happened that day, none of us do. But I feel pretty certain that if the landowners would have handled things differently that no one would have ended up dead. If you have hunting ground adjoining public land the unfortunate reality is you'll need to send some "wayward" hunters on their way from time to time. Is it right? No, but it's also not worth escalating into a deadly force situation. Pretty much any CCW class will teach you, that if you're armed to try to avoid trouble. You don't get into petty fights while armed. In this case I think you had people who didn't understand reasonable behavior while armed, dealing with someone who (right or wrong) was prepared to function in a deadly force encounter.

I do think Mr Vang did wrong, at a minimum, by going beyond the amount of force needed to resolve the disparity of force situation. Whether he was justified in his self defense claim at all I do not know. My point is that it shouldn't have come to that.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:10:03 PM EDT
Pay attention class.

The fucker was tresspassing.

He should now be known as "That dead fella burried out next to the gutting shed."

Any questions?

Class dissmissed.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:52:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gamma762:
I've been trying to come up with a way to express this since this story came out. Details from the trial only reinforce my opinion...

I grew up in a rural area as a farm kid. I've seen both sides of this situation... no I didn't take over anyone's tree stand, but was angrily accused of tresspassing a couple times (I was in the right). I've also confronted numerous simple tresspassers and "out of place" hunters. I can tell you that from almost any angle, the way the landowners handled this situation could not have been any worse.

First off, if you're dealing with armed people, be polite. Not that you can't get your point across but there is no need to create additional stress for everyone. Second, it's perfectly fine to talk to him, ask him to leave, escort him off the property... or to hold him for law enforcement if that's your bent. But you DON'T ask him to leave and then come charging up on 4 wheelers and surround him so that you can "talk" to him. It's reasonable in the circumstances to believe that everyone was armed (as it turns out, they weren't) and quite frankly this would put any reasonable person in fear for their life. It's actually worse than I had originally envisioned, according to the testimony if they possibly manhandled him, and a minimum were within close contact distance, to flip over the hunting tag on his back (which would be assault). There appears to have been a disparity of force situation which was escalated radically, with no apparent nonviolent escape route for Mr. Vang. I also really wonder if and how intoxicated the landowners were... I've seen enough of these "hunting" parties to know how things often are.

This really strikes me as something similar to "road rage"... let's say that Mr. A's car has a fender bender with Mr. B's car. Clearly Mr A's fault. If Mr. B gets on his cell phone and gets 5 of his friends to come back him up while he takes out his anger on Mr A... bad things are going to ensue. If Mr A is armed the outcome I think would look about like this case.

I don't know exactly what happened that day, none of us do. But I feel pretty certain that if the landowners would have handled things differently that no one would have ended up dead. If you have hunting ground adjoining public land the unfortunate reality is you'll need to send some "wayward" hunters on their way from time to time. Is it right? No, but it's also not worth escalating into a deadly force situation. Pretty much any CCW class will teach you, that if you're armed to try to avoid trouble. You don't get into petty fights while armed. In this case I think you had people who didn't understand reasonable behavior while armed, dealing with someone who (right or wrong) was prepared to function in a deadly force encounter.

I do think Mr Vang did wrong, at a minimum, by going beyond the amount of force needed to resolve the disparity of force situation. Whether he was justified in his self defense claim at all I do not know. My point is that it shouldn't have come to that.






Well...holy shit...I'm sure glad you think Mr. Vang did wrong!!! That is a bit admission all right.

Look...why not just ditch the fucking shades of gray. Don't act like some pussy liberal trying to spread the blame around on the dead. That prick murdered six people. He was tresspassing and got his ass chewed out for doing so. During the ass chewing, he lost FACE. To an asian that is BAD! He knew fucking exactly what he was doing while killing those UNARMED people.

He deserves nothing less than the death penalty.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:52:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 12:57:08 PM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By Gamma762:
I've been trying to come up with a way to express this since this story came out. Details from the trial only reinforce my opinion...

I grew up in a rural area as a farm kid. I've seen both sides of this situation... no I didn't take over anyone's tree stand, but was angrily accused of tresspassing a couple times (I was in the right). I've also confronted numerous simple tresspassers and "out of place" hunters. I can tell you that from almost any angle, the way the landowners handled this situation could not have been any worse.

First off, if you're dealing with armed people, be polite. Not that you can't get your point across but there is no need to create additional stress for everyone. Second, it's perfectly fine to talk to him, ask him to leave, escort him off the property... or to hold him for law enforcement if that's your bent. But you DON'T ask him to leave and then come charging up on 4 wheelers and surround him so that you can "talk" to him. It's reasonable in the circumstances to believe that everyone was armed (as it turns out, they weren't) and quite frankly this would put any reasonable person in fear for their life. It's actually worse than I had originally envisioned, according to the testimony if they possibly manhandled him, and a minimum were within close contact distance, to flip over the hunting tag on his back (which would be assault). There appears to have been a disparity of force situation which was escalated radically, with no apparent nonviolent escape route for Mr. Vang. I also really wonder if and how intoxicated the landowners were... I've seen enough of these "hunting" parties to know how things often are.

This really strikes me as something similar to "road rage"... let's say that Mr. A's car has a fender bender with Mr. B's car. Clearly Mr A's fault. If Mr. B gets on his cell phone and gets 5 of his friends to come back him up while he takes out his anger on Mr A... bad things are going to ensue. If Mr A is armed the outcome I think would look about like this case.

I don't know exactly what happened that day, none of us do. But I feel pretty certain that if the landowners would have handled things differently that no one would have ended up dead. If you have hunting ground adjoining public land the unfortunate reality is you'll need to send some "wayward" hunters on their way from time to time. Is it right? No, but it's also not worth escalating into a deadly force situation. Pretty much any CCW class will teach you, that if you're armed to try to avoid trouble. You don't get into petty fights while armed. In this case I think you had people who didn't understand reasonable behavior while armed, dealing with someone who (right or wrong) was prepared to function in a deadly force encounter.

I do think Mr Vang did wrong, at a minimum, by going beyond the amount of force needed to resolve the disparity of force situation. Whether he was justified in his self defense claim at all I do not know. My point is that it shouldn't have come to that.



Again, if you folks had been paying attention to this story from the beginning, you would realize that the guy was NOT surrounded, NOR was he manhandled, NOR is there ANY credible evidence whatsoever that a disparity of force situation was in play when he opened up.

The two people on four wheelers were shot AFTER the first group of people he shot, and they were shot while ON the four wheeler as the trespassing murderer was LEAVING THE SCENE.

Nobody posed anything remotely near a reasonable threat to this guy. Even if we postulate that the guy with the rifle DID fire a shot (which has not been validated by ANY hard evidence whatsoever!) then that STILL does not justify him CHASING DOWN and shooting those who were FLEEING FROM THE SCENE.

Good God people! If you can't see a clear cut murder case here, then there is a problem!

There is NO evidence that anyone posed the shooter a reasonable threat PRIOR to his killing spree, and by his own ADMISSION he shot people as they RAN FROM HIM. He then bushwhacked two other people who WERE NOT PRESENT for the original incident and who had PASSED HIM (he shot them in the back) BY COMPLETELY and yet he STILL shot them both in the back.

In the name of all that is holy, READ THE FRIGGIN STORY.

Either that or disqualify yourself from ANY jury duty.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:56:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LUGERMAN:
Interesting, I watch the 6:00 news every evening. Not one mention of this on the news here in the East at all. Now if it was a White guy who shot an "asian" type I'm sure it would have been the lead story every night!



Gee...ya think???

No shit...this is a PC hot potato that the media is laying off of.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:05:14 PM EDT
I hope they let him off.


Cause he won't make it to the state line . . . . .
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:05:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By LUGERMAN:
Interesting, I watch the 6:00 news every evening. Not one mention of this on the news here in the East at all. Now if it was a White guy who shot an "asian" type I'm sure it would have been the lead story every night!



Gee...ya think???

No shit...this is a PC hot potato that the media is laying off of.



You know, just when I think that ARFCOM cannot suprise me, a thread like this comes along....

It is downright SCARY.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 1:29:03 PM EDT
I feel for the dead and their families, however these boys obviously didn't know how to handle a trespasser. If the land was fenced and posted here in Texas, that sumbitch would have no rights period. He would have been detained at gun point until the game warden or sheriffs deputy arrived. Unless he was just lost, which this guy was not, or had made a honest mistake, he would have been held for the law. In south Texas he would have been shot and fed to the alligators and know one would have known where that mofo ended up.

I don't know why northern folk don't fence their land if they don't want people on it? If it is not fenced how can they hope to keep assholes out? If this guy climbed a fence why didn't they detain him? Why would they tear him an ass if they didn't have fire power? Apparently these hmong do poaching all the time so why don't they arrest them?

This reminds me of an incident that I had in south Dakota while pheasant hunting. There were 5 of us, two from Texas and three from Minnesota. We were hunting some crp land that was marked on the map in very small print. So we are hunting this tract which was on a lake and had sorgum and corn planted for the birds. On the map the tract looked to extend to the county road which was about 600 yards so we hunted into the pasture, as we crossed the pasture we noticed a completely broke down fence row. No fence, no hotshot fence, no posted signs. As we hunted the pasture we killed some great pheasants. When we got almost across we noticed a group of men aproachin from close to where the broken fence met the county road. It was obvious after a while that they were not hunting the pasture but were intent on intersecting our path. At that point we quit hunting and waited for them. There were 6 of them and five of us all armed with shotguns, the eldest in their party asked why we were hunting their land. Our lead guy explained that we were under the impression that we were on the tract open to the public at which time one of the younger men in the other party started talking shit about us and pointing his gun more towards our party. He was intent on either turning us in or making us think he was going hold us at gun point. Well he scared me enough with his loose cannon, gun handlin and attitude that I turned to put myself in a defensive position. The old man saw that due to the boy treating us like shit that we had all shifted into a more defensive posture at which time he told the boy to be quite, that he was handling this. I had heard all the acusations that I could take so I just had to say somthing. I told the man that I didn't come all the way from Texas to trespass another man's pasture, cause I damn sure wouldn't do it back home. Then I told him that I didn't see a fence on the whole place including its ajoining of the crp land and that we were going by the map the state gives out. And that furthermore the gaps on the pasture were not even chained or posted where we had entered nor on the side that we had progressed to. I then apoligized for being there and told them they need at least to post the crp side and that I was getting the hell out now if it was alright with them. I unloaded my shotgun and we all started heading out. The old man said that we might as well hunt to the road since we were in there, and I told him no thanks and headed out. As we left we talked about how the boy had behaved, and that we were glad that we got 4 good roosters from there anyway, but that roosters were damn sure not worth getting shot over.

You could tell that we were not the first to have been on their land, from what they said. They had encountered other trespassers earlier that day. I have thought about this incident for the last 8 years. Wondering did they infact own that pasture and if they did why did they not mark it so people wouldn't trespass. What would have happened if the boy had gone a little more dinky dau, what if he had pulled up that gun. If he had, how many on my side would have responded, and on their side. There was a moment when I was not sure what the boy would do. In that uncertainty is the scary part, because I am not going to let someone shoot me when I have 2 loads of highbrass 6's in my hands.

So I can see how they probably cussed this hmong and how he deserved a cussing, but damn don't cuss a man that you don't have the drop on. If your that pissed off at him save him for the sheriff to arrest or kill him yourself and turn his body into the sheriff. In Texas that boy would be hell bound with the death penalty by now.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top