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
Posted: 9/15/2005 9:29:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 9:30:01 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 1:42:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 1:45:40 AM EDT by glenn_r]

HAYWARD, WIS. -- A courtroom full of people sat in stunned silence Thursday as Chai Soua Vang ended his murder trial with the bold declaration that some of the six deer hunters he killed deserved to die because they were disrespectful.

In a cross-examination that may devastate Vang's claim that he was acting in self-defense, he said landowner Robert Crotteau and his 20-year-old son, Joe, deserved what they got when Vang chased them down and fatally shot each in the back, though Vang acknowledged that neither was armed.

Robert Crotteau deserved to die "because he's the one who confronted me and called me names and that's just who he is," Vang testified, as members of Crotteau's family appeared tearful and stunned.





Well, I guess that pretty much wraps up the trial. He's going to be going away for a long time. With that kind of testimony, not even Peg could screw up the prosecution. Too bad she'll make some political hay out of this. Hell, I could have prosecuted this case with those statements to help me out.


And during cross-examination Thursday by Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, Vang appeared to play into the prosecution's hands.

When she confronted Vang with a recorded statement he gave in which he said some of the hunters deserved to die, Vang responded matter-of-factly that the statement was true.

Lautenschlager ran down the list of victims, saying each name and asking Vang which deserved to die. Vang said that three -- the Crotteaus for how they treated him and Allan Laski because he had a gun -- deserved to die.

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 4:04:44 AM EDT
Wow, sounds like he just hung himself with that testimony. Interesting how the Channel 12 (Milwaukee) story mentions none of the 'deserved to die' testimony. Seems like that would be some very important stuff to mention.

www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/4979302/detail.html
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 4:48:51 AM EDT
I heard some audio clips on NPR this morning. Vang said, as I thought he would, that he shot unarmed people because he feared they were going to retrieve guns.

That might have flown...except Peg followed up with some good lawyer-speak questions. Specifically, "Did __ deserve to die?" Of course, the right answer to that is, "I'm so sorry that anyone died, but I knew if I didn't shoot them I'd be killed." He would have had a chance (a small one) with that line. Instead, Vang gave yes/no answers, and said two unarmed people deserved to die because of how they treated him.

Juries are always inherently unpredictable, so I wouldn't bet all my next paycheck on this one. But I'd bet a large chunk that he'll be found guilty, even though the jury is from Dane County.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:31:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 5:55:58 AM EDT by FMD]
I’ve been waiting to hear the other half of the testimony reported, remember: "reasonable doubt" is what rules in criminal trials.

Other stuff the media seems not to want to report:

Terry Willers and Lauren Hesebeck have testified that the party of 6 chased down Vang on 3 ATVs to confront him after he apologized to Willers and was leaving the property peacefully (Willer’s words). Both testified that Bob Crotteau initiated this move, and got in Vang’s face along with Alan Laski. All testimony agrees that Crotteau threatened to "kick your [expletive? epithet?] ass" if Vang came back, the only variance is how forceful the statement was made, and if there were racial slurs accompanying the threat.

Willers also admits that Crotteu "flipped" Vang's back tag after his son prevented Vang from leaving a second time, but that no one touched Vang (yet all testimony agrees that Vang's backpack was covering the obscured back tag); to unslinging his rifle (defensively - according to him) just before Vang opened fire. Hesebeck's admitted to firing at Vang (Before or after? This admission was previously unreported - even in the police report, and with little forensic evidence to support the claim). <<Edit for source and clarity: Testimony reported on MPR. Changes to my post made in blue>>

Willers’ words last words to his son before being taken to the hospital were “… it was stupid, what happened was stupid”.

Let’s see: Six on one odds, the admission of profanity with the distinct possibility of racial slurs, followed by an assault, and the possibility of what could have been construed as an aggressive act with a firearm, all before the first shot was fired. Afterward, the primary survivor of the initial confrontation offering words that could be construed as an indication of remorse. Apply the “reasonable man” test, and it still doesn’t look good (at least not a slam dunk), for the prosecution.

I still think it could go either way on the murder 1 charges, although ultimately; Vang’s gonna hang due to his own testimony, and his focus on how he was “disrespected”.

ETA:

Originally Posted By glenn_r:
Juries are always inherently unpredictable, so I wouldn't bet all my next paycheck on this one. But I'd bet a large chunk that he'll be found guilty, even though the jury is from Dane County.



+1
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:37:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:41:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BulletcatchR:
The way I see it,I think Vang's strategy is not to get over,but survive prison.That's the only sense I see in his giving that testimony.Saving face,so to speak.



Excellent insight.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:43:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 8:46:16 AM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
Earlier this week, I read a few other stories about the trial.
I can't summon a link at the moment, but the disparity in testimony regarding a racial slur seems to revolve around "Mud Duck."
To the land owners, and to us, it equates to, "Those MN asshats," kinda like refering to IL folks as FIBs and them repying, "F-Y Cheesehead." Apparently Vang interpreted this to be a racial slur. Both parties are telling the truth.

I'd like to know about the rifle unslinging.
If I'm feeling pursued and a holstile person unslings a rifle, there's a REALLY good chance that I'm going to open fire. If I don't act, I'm certainly running through it mentally and plotting my engagement sequence.

When this was a fresh story, I remember reports that Vang had made comments to the effect of, "Aren't you dead yet?" as he ran down and finished off his victims. Also clear from earlier is that Vang stopped shooting only because he was out of ammo.

Possible moral of the story #1:
Even though you're rightfully upset about trespassing, let him leave peaceably if he's trying to leave.

Possible moral of the story #2:
S S S. If they had it to do over again, that'd be their better option. I'd certainly prefer to stand trial, get lambasted in the media as a racist murderer and sent off to prison, AS OPPOSED to letting someone gun down my fleeing and unarmed child.

So now that we've all had the benefit of thinking the situation through, what do you do?

Someone should have summoned authorities immediately. They were close enough to talk and touch his back tag, disarming him was an option. Whatever cop or warden arrives could have handled giving his gun back somewhere away from the property.
It's a tough situation, because on the other side of it the trespasser may not believe he's trespassing. If six Hmong demanded that I disarm somewhere out in the woods ......... I'm right back to plotting my engagement sequence and moving towards cover.

In the end, it's my opinion that an armed trespasser constitutes a credible threat and operates at his own peril; you may engage at your own discretion. If you wanna be nice, give warnings and talk about it, that's up to you. As a juror, all you have to prove to me is that he was trespassing AND bearing arms. I won't convict someone defending themselves in that situation or participate in setting the precedent that it is a crime to do so.

I have to concur with BC's sentiment from an other thread. It's pretty fuckin' stupid to have this trial coincident with hunting season. No matter the verdict, there are certain to be angry people in the woods with guns.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:06:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 10:19:35 AM EDT by TheKill]

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
Earlier this week, I read a few other stories about the trial.
I can't summon a link at the moment, but the disparity in testimony regarding a racial slur seems to revolve around "Mud Duck."
To the land owners, and to us, it equates to, "Those MN asshats," kinda like refering to IL folks as FIBs and them repying, "F-Y Cheesehead." Apparently Vang interpreted this to be a racial slur. Both parties are telling the truth.

I'd like to know about the rifle unslinging.
If I'm feeling pursued and a holstile person unslings a rifle, there's a REALLY good chance that I'm going to open fire. If I don't act, I'm certainly running through it mentally and plotting my engagement sequence.

When this was a fresh story, I remember reports that Vang had made comments to the effect of, "Aren't you dead yet?" as he ran down and finished off his victims. Also clear from earlier is that Vang stopped shooting only because he was out of ammo.

Possible moral of the story #1:
Even though you're rightfully upset about trespassing, let him leave peaceably if he's trying to leave.

Possible moral of the story #2:
S S S. If they had it to do over again, that'd be their better option. I'd certainly prefer to stand trial, get lambasted in the media as a racist murderer and sent off to prison, AS OPPOSED to letting someone gun down my fleeing and unarmed child.

So now that we've all had the benefit of thinking the situation through, what do you do?

Someone should have summoned authorities immediately. They were close enough to talk and touch his back tag, disarming him was an option. Whatever cop or warden arrives could have handled giving his gun back somewhere away from the property.
It's a tough situation, because on the other side of it the trespasser may not believe he's trespassing. If six Hmong demanded that I disarm somewhere out in the woods ......... I'm right back to plotting my engagement sequence and moving towards cover.

In the end, it's my opinion that an armed trespasser constitutes a credible threat and operates at his own peril; you may engage at your own discretion. If you wanna be nice, give warnings and talk about it, that's up to you. As a juror, all you have to prove to me is that he was trespassing AND bearing arms. I won't convict someone defending themselves in that situation or participate in setting the precedent that it is a crime to do so.

I have to concur with BC's sentiment from an other thread. It's pretty fuckin' stupid to have this trial coincident with hunting season. No matter the verdict, there are certain to be angry people in the woods with guns.




Have you ever tried to get LE to respond to a trespasser during hunting season? If they went to every one, they would be tied up all day and have to bring in extra help. At any rate, in most rural areas the action will be over long before help arrives, regardless of if they take it seriously or not.


ETA: Everytime I ever had to confront a trespasser on my ex-FIL's land, it was truly a tense, possible SHTF situation.

Generally, the offenders are in groups and from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. They don't respect others. Some of them have records. And they are usually drunk/stoned, or some combination thereof. They generally want to argue and be an ass instead of respecting a request to leave the property. When they finally do, they will generally do something stupid like firing a shot at you, pulling your fence down, shooting up your signs (they do that anyway), and very rarely, coming back at night to fuck with your stand. I have sat and watched numerous trespassers, even people who seem like they would be respectable, pull into my hunting spot, get out of the car, look around, and then pull down the "No trespassing" sign the parked next to as they walk into the field. And it happens CONSTANTLY. EVERY YEAR.

My ex-FIL actually quit deer hunting because some shithead was in his stand on opening day and wouldn't get out when asked! He finally got out but only after he drew a bead "tween the runnin lights" and threated to shoot the sonofabitch. Keep in mind the trespasser is also armed!

The guy went across the fence about 50 yards away, and sat there whistling, yelling, and shooting in the air until the ex-FIL got disgusted and left. I finally talked him into pheasant hunting with me, but he will not hunt deer to this day.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:10:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 10:15:40 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
...So now that we've all had the benefit of thinking the situation through, what do you do?...



[philosophizing]

What do I do? Wait and take note of the jury's verdict, and hope to God that I'm never in the same situation.

What would I have done in the same situation (from either parties' perspective)? I just don't know, but I've gleaned a few lessons from listening to the story of how quickly things went downhill:

1) Be prepared to kill anyone you meet.
2) Don't confront someone you aren't prepared to fight (then see #1 above).
3) A disparity of force is no obstacle to determination.
4) Have an exit plan/strategy if things go bad.
5) Politeness to armed folks is a good thing (see #2 above).

Summary: be a "nice guy" until it's necessarry to stop a threat of great bodily harm, but prepare to be the meanest sumbich in the world when it's time to do so.

So many opportunities presented themselves for this situation to be resolved before shots were fired, it's amazing. I won't go so far as to asigning blame or absolving guilt (that would be the jury's job), but Monday Morning Quarterbacking the whole thing would lead me to believe that Vang observed most of the 5 lessons above, while his eight victims did not. That begs the following question:

"Is it better to be alive and in prison, or dead in the woods?"

[/philosophizing]


Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:20:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
...So now that we've all had the benefit of thinking the situation through, what do you do?...



"Is it better to be alive and in prison, or dead in the woods?"





The answer, of course, is alive in the woods with the shithead who threatened you with death or grave bodily harm dead on the ground!!!
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:22:30 AM EDT
It occurs to me, that perhaps LE doesn't respond seriously to trespassing during hunting season because they have to walk into a situation where the actors are armed and cannot be disarmed.

Here in WI, it would seem to make sense. I have met very few pro gun LEO.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:50:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:
It occurs to me, that perhaps LE doesn't respond seriously to trespassing during hunting season because they have to walk into a situation where the actors are armed and cannot be disarmed.

Here in WI, it would seem to make sense. I have met very few pro gun LEO.



Why couldn't they be disarmed? That makes no sence. If I'm a cop going on a call and anyone is armed, hunting or not, they would be disamed before speaking with them.

With all the anti-law enforcement BS on this board, I'm suprised to hear anyone recomend calling the cops, which would have been the right thing to do in this situation. Ain't nothing worth risking not coming home from a hunting trip.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:35:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 12:41:33 PM EDT by TheKill]

Originally Posted By colt100:

Originally Posted By TheKill:
It occurs to me, that perhaps LE doesn't respond seriously to trespassing during hunting season because they have to walk into a situation where the actors are armed and cannot be disarmed.

Here in WI, it would seem to make sense. I have met very few pro gun LEO.



Why couldn't they be disarmed? That makes no sence. If I'm a cop going on a call and anyone is armed, hunting or not, they would be disamed before speaking with them.

With all the anti-law enforcement BS on this board, I'm suprised to hear anyone recomend calling the cops, which would have been the right thing to do in this situation. Ain't nothing worth risking not coming home from a hunting trip.



Disarmed under what pretext? They are HUNTING for crying out loud.

Let me rephrase that. Today's LE seems to be real leery about the dreaded GUN. I mean, I understand in an urban environment, if someone pulls out a gun, generally someone is going to have a bad day. But if called to a trespassing incident during hunting season, they will arrive on a scene where everyone there will likely already have a dreaded GUN in their hands. And I think LE training is pretty standard: GUN = BAD, GUN = COMPLY OR DIE. Officer safety and all that. And it seems to be applied across the board regardless of circumstances most of the time. It leaves little room for the free exercise of our right to bear arms, and I could see where it would make it difficult for the new breed of LE to respond to a situation where there are multiple actors lawfully armed and with the weapons in hand.

Does that clarify my point?

ETA to more fully address YOUR point. If I am a good guy, on my land, and not breaking the law....as far as I am concerned I don't care how the LEO feels about it. I have the right to have a gun in hand and if he doesn't like it that's too damn bad. If you disarm me, I would comply but would think that you are an asshat. Not everyone with a gun is a threat. Most people I know feel the same way, especially in rural areas. Some would refuse to be disarmed. I miss my old farm....on a nice day I would be shooting in my yard and you could hear gunfire from all four points of the compass!

And to address whoever is going to post: "but in a tense situation it would be best to disarm everyone and then sort it out". Let everyone keep their guns. Anyone who draws down during the verbal discussion is obviously a bad guy under those circumstances and can then be dealt with appropriately. And the LEO is there to appropriately document everything right away.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 1:26:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By colt100:
With all the anti-law enforcement BS on this board, I'm suprised .....



Apparently, you've been wading in shit out in GD. Please kick off you boots and waders at the door. We'd rather you didn't track that shit in here.

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 2:48:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 2:59:05 PM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By FMD:
Hesebeck's admitted to firing at Vang (Before or after? This admission was previously unreported - even in the police report, and with little forensic evidence to support the claim).



Actually it was reported even in the police report, and the criminal complaint, page 12

Hesebeck shot at the
defendant once, after which the defendant turned and ran away.

link


And here is the latest.


Vang found guilty on all counts in hunter killings

Chai Soua Vang was found guilty this afternoon of first-degree murder in the shooting deaths of six hunters in Wisconsin's north woods last fall.

A jury of eight women and four men deliberated about four hours before coming to their verdict.

Vang was also found guilty of two counts of attempted homicide in the shootings of two other hunters who survived.

Killed in the confrontation last Nov. 21 were Dennis Drew, 55; Mark Roidt, 28; Robert Crotteau, 42; his son, Joey, 20; Allan Laski, 43, and Jessica Willers, 27. Wounded in the shootings were Terry Willers, 48, and Lauren Hesebeck, 49.

Four of the victims were shot in the back, and all but Willers were unarmed.

The jury was faced with deciding whether to accept Vang's defense that he feared for his own life against a group of hunters who confronted him with hostility when they saw him in a tree stand on their property.

Jurors could have acquitted Vang, or convicted him on lesser charges of second-degree intentional homicide if they had determined he actually believed he was in danger but that his actions were unreasonable.

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 2:49:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 3:07:27 PM EDT
And of course the only reason he is guilty is because of an all white jury. Did anyone here see the family friend that came out to give his little speech? It was totally pathetic and all the blame went to the white jury. F him and Vang!
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 3:15:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 3:47:05 PM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By photoman:
Actually it was reported even in the police report, and the criminal complaint, page 12

Hesebeck shot at the
defendant once, after which the defendant turned and ran away.

link



Missed the detail (or completely forgot) in the police report completely.

Thank God it's over, except for the prison rape.

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 4:23:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
...So now that we've all had the benefit of thinking the situation through, what do you do?...



[philosophizing]

What do I do? Wait and take note of the jury's verdict, and hope to God that I'm never in the same situation.

What would I have done in the same situation (from either parties' perspective)? I just don't know, but I've gleaned a few lessons from listening to the story of how quickly things went downhill:

1) Be prepared to kill anyone you meet.
2) Don't confront someone you aren't prepared to fight (then see #1 above).
3) A disparity of force is no obstacle to determination.
4) Have an exit plan/strategy if things go bad.
5) Politeness to armed folks is a good thing (see #2 above).

Summary: be a "nice guy" until it's necessarry to stop a threat of great bodily harm, but prepare to be the meanest sumbich in the world when it's time to do so.

So many opportunities presented themselves for this situation to be resolved before shots were fired, it's amazing. I won't go so far as to asigning blame or absolving guilt (that would be the jury's job), but Monday Morning Quarterbacking the whole thing would lead me to believe that Vang observed most of the 5 lessons above, while his eight victims did not. That begs the following question:

"Is it better to be alive and in prison, or dead in the woods?"

[/philosophizing]





IMO, the 'be a nice guy' rule is the first one Vang violated. Tresspassing and sitting in a treestand that is not your's is bound to anger the owner. Vang has lived here long enough to know that. Being polite when confronted may not be enough, but can't hurt either. (I know he claims he diddn't know he was tresspassing, but after following the case/trial, I simply do not believe him.)

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:08:07 PM EDT
A few years ago, it was the property owners responsibility to "post" their property for no trespassing. It is now the hunters job to know where they are, who owns the land and have a signed permission statement if it is not their property and the owner is not present. It's been that way for a couple years now and let me tell you, it's great not having to go out and put those darn signs up all over the border.
Link Posted: 9/18/2005 7:02:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Drawcut:


IMO, the 'be a nice guy' rule is the first one Vang violated. Tresspassing and sitting in a treestand that is not your's is bound to anger the owner. Vang has lived here long enough to know that. Being polite when confronted may not be enough, but can't hurt either. (I know he claims he diddn't know he was tresspassing, but after following the case/trial, I simply do not believe him.)




Yeah, he was trying to instigate trouble. Probably got to be more than he expected though when a bunch of people showed up to run him off.

Hopefully his life in prison will be a living Hell. Before he gets to the real one that is.
For someone who loves the outdoors prison would be intolerable. He is likely to end up a suicide if you ask me.

Besides, I don't think ANYONE there is going to show this lowlife POS truck driver the respect he thinks he deserves.
Link Posted: 9/18/2005 1:58:51 PM EDT
I hope that POS Vang gets along well with his new husband in prison.
Link Posted: 9/18/2005 2:11:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By colt100:

Originally Posted By TheKill:
It occurs to me, that perhaps LE doesn't respond seriously to trespassing during hunting season because they have to walk into a situation where the actors are armed and cannot be disarmed.

Here in WI, it would seem to make sense. I have met very few pro gun LEO.



Why couldn't they be disarmed? That makes no sence. If I'm a cop going on a call and anyone is armed, hunting or not, they would be disamed before speaking with them.

With all the anti-law enforcement BS on this board, I'm suprised to hear anyone recomend calling the cops, which would have been the right thing to do in this situation. Ain't nothing worth risking not coming home from a hunting trip.



Disarmed under what pretext? They are HUNTING for crying out loud.

Let me rephrase that. Today's LE seems to be real leery about the dreaded GUN. I mean, I understand in an urban environment, if someone pulls out a gun, generally someone is going to have a bad day. But if called to a trespassing incident during hunting season, they will arrive on a scene where everyone there will likely already have a dreaded GUN in their hands. And I think LE training is pretty standard: GUN = BAD, GUN = COMPLY OR DIE. Officer safety and all that. And it seems to be applied across the board regardless of circumstances most of the time. It leaves little room for the free exercise of our right to bear arms, and I could see where it would make it difficult for the new breed of LE to respond to a situation where there are multiple actors lawfully armed and with the weapons in hand.

Does that clarify my point?

ETA to more fully address YOUR point. If I am a good guy, on my land, and not breaking the law....as far as I am concerned I don't care how the LEO feels about it. I have the right to have a gun in hand and if he doesn't like it that's too damn bad. If you disarm me, I would comply but would think that you are an asshat. Not everyone with a gun is a threat. Most people I know feel the same way, especially in rural areas. Some would refuse to be disarmed. I miss my old farm....on a nice day I would be shooting in my yard and you could hear gunfire from all four points of the compass!

And to address whoever is going to post: "but in a tense situation it would be best to disarm everyone and then sort it out". Let everyone keep their guns. Anyone who draws down during the verbal discussion is obviously a bad guy under those circumstances and can then be dealt with appropriately. And the LEO is there to appropriately document everything right away.



This isn't even worth wasting my time responding to.
Link Posted: 9/18/2005 2:55:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By colt100:

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Originally Posted By colt100:

Originally Posted By TheKill:
It occurs to me, that perhaps LE doesn't respond seriously to trespassing during hunting season because they have to walk into a situation where the actors are armed and cannot be disarmed.

Here in WI, it would seem to make sense. I have met very few pro gun LEO.



Why couldn't they be disarmed? That makes no sence. If I'm a cop going on a call and anyone is armed, hunting or not, they would be disamed before speaking with them.

With all the anti-law enforcement BS on this board, I'm suprised to hear anyone recomend calling the cops, which would have been the right thing to do in this situation. Ain't nothing worth risking not coming home from a hunting trip.



Disarmed under what pretext? They are HUNTING for crying out loud.

Let me rephrase that. Today's LE seems to be real leery about the dreaded GUN. I mean, I understand in an urban environment, if someone pulls out a gun, generally someone is going to have a bad day. But if called to a trespassing incident during hunting season, they will arrive on a scene where everyone there will likely already have a dreaded GUN in their hands. And I think LE training is pretty standard: GUN = BAD, GUN = COMPLY OR DIE. Officer safety and all that. And it seems to be applied across the board regardless of circumstances most of the time. It leaves little room for the free exercise of our right to bear arms, and I could see where it would make it difficult for the new breed of LE to respond to a situation where there are multiple actors lawfully armed and with the weapons in hand.

Does that clarify my point?

ETA to more fully address YOUR point. If I am a good guy, on my land, and not breaking the law....as far as I am concerned I don't care how the LEO feels about it. I have the right to have a gun in hand and if he doesn't like it that's too damn bad. If you disarm me, I would comply but would think that you are an asshat. Not everyone with a gun is a threat. Most people I know feel the same way, especially in rural areas. Some would refuse to be disarmed. I miss my old farm....on a nice day I would be shooting in my yard and you could hear gunfire from all four points of the compass!

And to address whoever is going to post: "but in a tense situation it would be best to disarm everyone and then sort it out". Let everyone keep their guns. Anyone who draws down during the verbal discussion is obviously a bad guy under those circumstances and can then be dealt with appropriately. And the LEO is there to appropriately document everything right away.



This isn't even worth wasting my time responding to.




I would suggest talking to me in person first to get a real idea where I am coming from. I am active with the rest of the WI ARFCOM crowd in real life and not just on the intarweb. But I'll give you a hint: the last two sentences of the last paragraph are ironic in nature and not serious.

My money is on you not participating in real life. We have one LEO that does, he's a great guy and I'll back him up any day. The rest of WI LEOs are active here but not in real life. I think that says something but I'm not sure what.
Link Posted: 9/18/2005 3:51:07 PM EDT
*backs out of the thread slowly, trying not to make eye contact with anyone*
Link Posted: 9/18/2005 4:44:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:

Have you ever tried to get LE to respond to a trespasser during hunting season?



Had the same thing happen to my father on the land we hunt on in Spring Green. Have always known the owner on the land adjacent, has always had a "screw loose", but one time they must have been a little drunk or something.

Big buck started traversing through the valley between our posts, all of a sudden, right as he was about to take a shot, 3 or 4 shots come out of the blue, followed by a bunch of yelling and shouting, with the crazy SOB running onto this land (private property). Didnt even hit the deer (they are those kinds of people that you here at 5am before the sun comes up, who shoot at "shadows") and then proceeded to come onto our land, yelling and shouting about why we were sitting on theri land. Long story short, the land is WELL posted as to whos land is whos, from previous years when we learned what they were all about. My dad didnt feel very comfortable, and by the time I got up there, the confrontation was over, and the asshats were back on their land, spouting profanities along the way. My old man hasnt posted there ever since (about 5 years ago this was). I carry a sidearm (non-concealed) during deer season and whenever else I go on that land. I think it scared him pretty good, and I dont ever want to have to be afriad of that guy again.

And now I wont have to, thanks to you guys for getting me into training this weekend.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 4:34:34 AM EDT
Let me ask you guys something. If you were a cop would you walk into a potential deadly force encounter over a simple trespassing violation? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I've hunted deer since I've been old enough to hold a rifle. In that time, I have seen everything. People drinking while hunting. Deer hunters in general are poor in firearms handling ("Elmer Fudd days at the range are avoided at all costs"). And some defninitely have a screw loose. I have heard plenty of people say "S S S" if they ever get caught poaching.

Let me ask again. You're carrying a handgun. The people you are going to meet are not having a good day, and have rifles. You are outnumbered. Are you going in?

Not saying it's right, but I understand why cops stay out of the woods during hunting season.

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 6:45:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 6:47:04 AM EDT by dalesimpson]

Originally Posted By Fast351:
Let me ask you guys something. If you were a cop would you walk into a potential deadly force encounter over a simple trespassing violation? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I've hunted deer since I've been old enough to hold a rifle. In that time, I have seen everything. People drinking while hunting. Deer hunters in general are poor in firearms handling ("Elmer Fudd days at the range are avoided at all costs"). And some defninitely have a screw loose. I have heard plenty of people say "S S S" if they ever get caught poaching.

Let me ask again. You're carrying a handgun. The people you are going to meet are not having a good day, and have rifles. You are outnumbered. Are you going in?

Not saying it's right, but I understand why cops stay out of the woods during hunting season.




My answer would be, yes, I am going in. The duty of a LEO is to enforce laws, that is why they are called LAW ENFORCEMENT officers. The only time I would expect a LEO to pull a "no show" to a trespassing call would be if there were a more important law violation that needed to be attended to. In my not so humble opinion, if a LEO is called for a trespassing violation during the gun deer season and he doesn't respond simply because he doesn't feel like it then he shouldn't have his job any longer. You make it sound like deer hunters are like gunfighters in the old West. Just because you get a group of guys together with firearms who are in disagreement doesn't mean that it is going to turn into the OK Corral. Jesus, just because I am carrying a gun doesn't mean that I am a murderous son of a bitch you know.

edited for grammatical error
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:02:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dalesimpson:

My answer would be, yes, I am going in. The duty of a LEO is to enforce laws, that is why they are called LAW ENFORCEMENT officers. The only time I would expect a LEO to pull a "no show" to a trespassing call would be if there were a more important law violation that needed to be attended to. In my not so humble opinion, if a LEO is called for a trespassing violation during the gun deer season and he doesn't respond simply because he doesn't feel like it then he shouldn't have his job any longer. You make it sound like deer hunters are like gunfighters in the old West. Just because you get a group of guys together with firearms who are in disagreement doesn't mean that it is going to turn into the OK Corral. Jesus, just because I am carrying a gun doesn't mean that I am a murderous son of a bitch you know.

edited for grammatical error




This is exactly like the anti-ccw argument I have heard from certain LEO's I know. They have said how, if there was a CCW for people, then cops would have to be more cautious because they wouldnt know who has a gun or not.

Um...isnt it you JOB to assume that ANYONE might have a gun? This tells me that the officers right now dont necessarily take the highest precautions when they stop/confront people, only because there isnt a CCW law. To me, that is assanine.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:16:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dpixel8:

Originally Posted By dalesimpson:

My answer would be, yes, I am going in. The duty of a LEO is to enforce laws, that is why they are called LAW ENFORCEMENT officers. The only time I would expect a LEO to pull a "no show" to a trespassing call would be if there were a more important law violation that needed to be attended to. In my not so humble opinion, if a LEO is called for a trespassing violation during the gun deer season and he doesn't respond simply because he doesn't feel like it then he shouldn't have his job any longer. You make it sound like deer hunters are like gunfighters in the old West. Just because you get a group of guys together with firearms who are in disagreement doesn't mean that it is going to turn into the OK Corral. Jesus, just because I am carrying a gun doesn't mean that I am a murderous son of a bitch you know.

edited for grammatical error




This is exactly like the anti-ccw argument I have heard from certain LEO's I know. They have said how, if there was a CCW for people, then cops would have to be more cautious because they wouldnt know who has a gun or not.

Um...isnt it you JOB to assume that ANYONE might have a gun? This tells me that the officers right now dont necessarily take the highest precautions when they stop/confront people, only because there isnt a CCW law. To me, that is assanine.



I am not sure if you are saying that I am anti-CCW or what. I am absolutely pro-CCW. I just don't like the way of thinking of some people that think just because there are a bunch of armed guys in the woods that any confrontation is going to turn into a shootout.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:41:49 AM EDT
No, I agree with you. Sorry if my wording was not that great. Assumption on these matters is what is wrong, is what I was trying to say. Just like LEO's assuming that when there is a CCW, it will be more dangerous for them to confront individuals, for instance in traffic stops.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 9:44:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dpixel8:
No, I agree with you. Sorry if my wording was not that great. Assumption on these matters is what is wrong, is what I was trying to say. Just like LEO's assuming that when there is a CCW, it will be more dangerous for them to confront individuals, for instance in traffic stops.



I am a firm believer in "an armed society is a polite society".
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 10:48:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dalesimpson:

Originally Posted By dpixel8:
No, I agree with you. Sorry if my wording was not that great. Assumption on these matters is what is wrong, is what I was trying to say. Just like LEO's assuming that when there is a CCW, it will be more dangerous for them to confront individuals, for instance in traffic stops.



I am a firm believer in "an armed society is a polite society".




Except during a trespassing incident during hunting season. This I know! And Fast351 has good points. Often times, by the time the PD could get there, it's already over, and the arguing, hot tempers, and gun pointing have already taken place! However, the laws are the laws. If the PD won't show when you are asking for help dealing with a drunk and unruly trespasser on YOUR property, well, of course that will effect your opinion.

Now, some of it may be due to staffing level and response time too. And if the responding officer decides to try an arrange for backup before going, I don't blame them for that either! Response time for the first officer out where I hunt has been +/- 30 minutes. But the facts are, DON'T count on help from the law when you really need it, and you won't ever be disappointed.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 10:53:46 AM EDT
Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you guys at all. I'm just trying to shed some light as to why an LEO wouldn't show up. I know why I wouldn't, and that's why I'm not LEO.

As for CCW, at LEAST you know that CCW people have passed background checks and are generally law abiding folks. The same cannot be said for some deerhunters.

I know our party personally, we never even drink alcohol (not the night before, not during, or at any time) just because we feel it doesn't benefit us.

I've seen plenty of stupid shit in the woods. Not sure about what your laws are in Wisconsin, but in Minnesota, as long as you're over 18, you don't need gun safety or anything. You can go into the woods with a rifle, with zero education about firearms handling. I would like to see a mandatory class (1/2 day should be plenty) covering the basics of firearm safety, just like CCW. Things like "don't shoot at movement" "don't shoot unless you know your target and what's beyond it" etc etc seem like common sense, but every year there are a handful of people shot because they "looked like a deer" or were sitting in their house and a rifle slug came whizzing through.

In any case, back to the original topic, I'm glad the jury of your peers found Vang guilty and in a nice speedy way. I was half thinking this was going to turn into another OJ Simpson/Michael Jackson debacle.

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:00:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:01:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fast351:
Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you guys at all. I'm just trying to shed some light as to why an LEO wouldn't show up. I know why I wouldn't, and that's why I'm not LEO.

As for CCW, at LEAST you know that CCW people have passed background checks and are generally law abiding folks. The same cannot be said for some deerhunters.

I know our party personally, we never even drink alcohol (not the night before, not during, or at any time) just because we feel it doesn't benefit us.

I've seen plenty of stupid shit in the woods. Not sure about what your laws are in Wisconsin, but in Minnesota, as long as you're over 18, you don't need gun safety or anything. You can go into the woods with a rifle, with zero education about firearms handling. I would like to see a mandatory class (1/2 day should be plenty) covering the basics of firearm safety, just like CCW. Things like "don't shoot at movement" "don't shoot unless you know your target and what's beyond it" etc etc seem like common sense, but every year there are a handful of people shot because they "looked like a deer" or were sitting in their house and a rifle slug came whizzing through.

In any case, back to the original topic, I'm glad the jury of your peers found Vang guilty and in a nice speedy way. I was half thinking this was going to turn into another OJ Simpson/Michael Jackson debacle.




I would love to see that too, but unfortunatly, you and I both know that anyone taking that class, or is WILLING to take it, is already a safe, or sane person in the first place. The people we all have to worry about are the ones that, even if there WAS a CCW or a Hunter Training Course, either A.) wouldnt take the course anyways, or B.) wouldnt pass the background checks to even be eligible to take it. These people are always going to be a problem, and passing laws is not going to fix the situation, just like coming up with assanine gun bans is not going to stop criminals from obtaining guns when we confiscate Law Abiding Citizens' firearms from them.

/rant
Top Top