Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/28/2005 7:08:36 PM EDT
that chow vein( don't care how i spell it)that asian hunter that murderd is claiming self defense, and won't go for a plea bargin his trial begins sept. 12
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 9:26:13 PM EDT
Where did his venue get changed to?

With everyone dead, and him-and-his-lawyers free to concoct whatever wild story they please months after the prosecution has tendered full discovery, he has a fair chance of convincing folks that the incident was precipitated by their actions.

It's still gonna be tough to explain how he shot an unarmed kid in the back in self defense.
I bet there'll be paid experts who try to tell the jury about some combat stress whereby he isn't responsible for his actions for a few minutes after the evil-nazi-klansmen began guning after him for no reason other than his yellow skin.
He was terrified and rightfully in fear for his life!

OH MY!

Also gonna be tough to explain why he didn't make any mention of narrowly escaping with his life when other hunters helped him find his way out of the woods.
They were probably white, and he feared they might all be in-on-it together ........ better keep your mouth shut and not temp the blue-eyed-devils ....... he was afraid, remember.

He's gonna have an avert-justice-for-hire dream team legal defense that isn't going to cost him a dime.
The trial is gonna take a long time with tons of complex legal wranglings.
They're going to play the race card more times than Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Farrakan combined.
... and when it's all over, he's going to get life ........ maybe potential parole in 20.

What it's all going to boil down to is, the jury can't be too harsh on him no matter what, because there will be a strong implication that anyone who doesn't belive him is a racist.
(Poor little Vang was just trying to get along and be American, and look what they did to him.)
On the flip side, they can't cut him loose, no matter what, because folks might decide to seek their own justice if the court wont meter it out.

Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:46:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
Where did his venue get changed to?

With everyone dead, and him-and-his-lawyers free to concoct whatever wild story they please months after the prosecution has tendered full discovery, he has a fair chance of convincing folks that the incident was precipitated by their actions.

It's still gonna be tough to explain how he shot an unarmed kid in the back in self defense.
I bet there'll be paid experts who try to tell the jury about some combat stress whereby he isn't responsible for his actions for a few minutes after the evil-nazi-klansmen began guning after him for no reason other than his yellow skin.
He was terrified and rightfully in fear for his life!

OH MY!

Also gonna be tough to explain why he didn't make any mention of narrowly escaping with his life when other hunters helped him find his way out of the woods.
They were probably white, and he feared they might all be in-on-it together ........ better keep your mouth shut and not temp the blue-eyed-devils ....... he was afraid, remember.

He's gonna have an avert-justice-for-hire dream team legal defense that isn't going to cost him a dime.
The trial is gonna take a long time with tons of complex legal wranglings.
They're going to play the race card more times than Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Farrakan combined.
... and when it's all over, he's going to get life ........ maybe potential parole in 20.

What it's all going to boil down to is, the jury can't be too harsh on him no matter what, because there will be a strong implication that anyone who doesn't belive him is a racist.
(Poor little Vang was just trying to get along and be American, and look what they did to him.)
On the flip side, they can't cut him loose, no matter what, because folks might decide to seek their own justice if the court wont meter it out.




His self defense claim will never work, he fucked up, he left witnesses. I don't remember where they changed it to. The guy is fucked. And he's still a suspect in another hunter murder from a couple years back. I wouldn't be suprised if they end up nailing his ass for that too.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:58:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 4:59:58 AM EDT by FMD]
IBDJ

(In Before Doc Jarhead)

IIRC, the venue hasn't changed, but the Jury pool is from Madison.

I'm still keeping an open mind. I'd love to be able to sit in on the trial.

-FMD
(hater of his own race)
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:12:56 AM EDT
This morning NPR said the trial is being held in Hayward.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:15:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
... and when it's all over, he's going to get life ........ maybe potential parole in 20.




Nah, we've got "truth-in-sentencing" now. If he's sentenced to life, that's what he'll serve.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 7:00:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 11:56:47 AM EDT by BulletcatchR]
.

Link Posted: 8/29/2005 7:13:02 AM EDT
Ya might want to edit that post real quick Glockface. Don't want ya getting in trouble....
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 9:07:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 9:16:20 PM EDT by MisterPX]
doot dooot doot
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 9:07:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 9:09:09 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By photoman:
Ya might want to edit that post real quick Glockface. Don't want ya getting in trouble....




Originally Posted By MisterPX:
I too would HEAVILY reccommend you edit your post Glockface.



A BIG +1 to the edit advise.



Gf's attitude is exactly why I'd like to be at the trial and hear the facts of the case.

I understand that many Hmong poach (reliable second hand reports), AND that Vang was trespassing. What absolutely, positively matters (to me) in the case is who pulled the trigger first.

No death in this case is excusable, but if Vang did not fire first, then every death is understandable.

Link Posted: 8/29/2005 10:18:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By photoman:
Ya might want to edit that post real quick Glockface. Don't want ya getting in trouble....




Originally Posted By MisterPX:
I too would HEAVILY reccommend you edit your post Glockface.



A BIG +1 to the edit advise.



Gf's attitude is exactly why I'd like to be at the trial and hear the facts of the case.

I understand that many Hmong poach (reliable second hand reports), AND that Vang was trespassing. What absolutely, positively matters (to me) in the case is who pulled the trigger first.

No death in this case is excusable, but if Vang did not fire first, then every death is understandable.




Well I for one don't feel the need to sit in on the trial, though it would be interesting. Unlike the court and the jury I don't have to give him the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I think he did it in cold blood. The links between him and the murder of a hunter a couple years back are also pretty strong, and I feel that this isn't the first time he's killed people over hunting related shit. No matter what happened, shooting an unarmed individual who is running away in the back is not and never can be construed as self defense. That person poses no threat.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 11:25:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
No matter what happened, shooting an unarmed individual who is running away in the back is not and never can be construed as self defense. That person poses no threat.



[lawyer]After they all finished screaming that they were going to kill you, and two of them fired their rifles, you saw someone running away. You shot them in the back while they weren't carrying a rifle. Why?[/lawyer]

[vang]The person had already said they were going to kill me, and others in the group had shot at me. I saw him running away and knew he was running towards a rifle to carry through on his threat, and the only way I could stop him was to shoot him.[/vang]

I don't think this quite matches the forensic evidence, since IIRC Vang had to run after the person he shot in the back. Still, his lawyer is going to try to beat the charges, and self-defense or mental disease are the only angles a defense lawyer would have in this kind of case. I'm surprised he's not going with the mental defect defense, but that would involve confinement in a mental unit.

All the defense lawyer has to do is create reasonable doubt in one out of twelve people. He does not have to prove Vang is not guilty--just that there's some question about the certainty of Vang's guilt. With no independent witnesses, the evidence is going to play an important role. That, and who seems credible on the stand.

It's definitely a prosecutable case, but it's just good defense lawyering. All you need is one person to not agree "beyond a reasonable doubt" and he's not found guilty.

I don't think they'll be able to pull off the defense without putting Vang on the stand. That will be interesting.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 11:29:24 AM EDT
The other good thing about a self-defense trial is that Vang's lawyers will not be able to argue that the cops arrested the wrong person, or that their line-up procedures were faulty, or that they were racists trying to pin it on any Hmong they could find. By claiming self-defense, Vang admits he shot them. So he's pinning his freedom on only one thing--his credibility and version of events will be believable enough.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 11:44:30 AM EDT
I have seen and dealt with Hmong poachers on my property. They dont give a shit and they pretend to speak no english if you catch them. And even if you do, they'll be back in 15 minutes or so. . . .

Link Posted: 8/29/2005 11:49:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glenn_r:

Originally Posted By photoman:
No matter what happened, shooting an unarmed individual who is running away in the back is not and never can be construed as self defense. That person poses no threat.



[lawyer]After they all finished screaming that they were going to kill you, and two of them fired their rifles, you saw someone running away. You shot them in the back while they weren't carrying a rifle. Why?[/lawyer]

[vang]The person had already said they were going to kill me, and others in the group had shot at me. I saw him running away and knew he was running towards a rifle to carry through on his threat, and the only way I could stop him was to shoot him.[/vang]

I don't think this quite matches the forensic evidence, since IIRC Vang had to run after the person he shot in the back. Still, his lawyer is going to try to beat the charges, and self-defense or mental disease are the only angles a defense lawyer would have in this kind of case. I'm surprised he's not going with the mental defect defense, but that would involve confinement in a mental unit.

All the defense lawyer has to do is create reasonable doubt in one out of twelve people. He does not have to prove Vang is not guilty--just that there's some question about the certainty of Vang's guilt. With no independent witnesses, the evidence is going to play an important role. That, and who seems credible on the stand.

It's definitely a prosecutable case, but it's just good defense lawyering. All you need is one person to not agree "beyond a reasonable doubt" and he's not found guilty.

I don't think they'll be able to pull off the defense without putting Vang on the stand. That will be interesting.



Correct, infact it was two people. And thier bodies were roughly 100 yards from the rest of the group and where the initial shots were fired.

Even if verything went down the way he said, those two were not in self defense they were cold blooded murder. If it really was SD then that was his chance to E&E.


Also was just talking to my bossa bout this and she said she heard his lawyer talking today and he said they are not going to claim self defense.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 12:07:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
she said she heard his lawyer talking today and he said they are not going to claim self defense.



Like you said, the self-defense argument would have been...ummm...difficult to pull off, but I think it's probably about as likely to succeed as anything. If not self defense, and not mental illness, about the only thing left is to attack the credibility of LE. That will only go so far, assuming the in-court eyewitness identifications hold up, his prints were on the rifle or ammo, etc.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 12:14:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 12:16:12 PM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By photoman:
Even if everything went down the way he said, those two were not in self defense they were cold blooded murder. If it really was SD then that was his chance to E&E.



[emphasis mine, obviously]

Now there I would disagree. I wouldn't call it "cold blooded murder" (although I'd have a hard time calling it self-defense).

10-1, 8-1, or 5-1 (hell, 2 to 1) odds and I'm shooting 'till there is no one standing. Slidelock, reload, and adding a few more rounds downrange before bugging out. Under stress, who's to say that's wrong? The "reasonable man" standard would apply, I believe.

I think Glenn's opinion of the whole thing is an accurate representation of what Vang's defense would do if it were smart. I can honestley say that I don't know which side I'd favor, hence the desire to be a fly on the wall at trial.

I do know that I'd like to hear the best arguments both for and against, but we all know that aint happening on an interweb forum.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 12:17:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 1:05:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 1:07:58 PM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By photoman:
Even if everything went down the way he said, those two were not in self defense they were cold blooded murder. If it really was SD then that was his chance to E&E.



[emphasis mine, obviously]

Now there I would disagree. I wouldn't call it "cold blooded murder" (although I'd have a hard time calling it self-defense).

10-1, 8-1, or 5-1 (hell, 2 to 1) odds and I'm shooting 'till there is no one standing. Slidelock, reload, and adding a few more rounds downrange before bugging out. Under stress, who's to say that's wrong? The "reasonable man" standard would apply, I believe.

I think Glenn's opinion of the whole thing is an accurate representation of what Vang's defense would do if it were smart. I can honestley say that I don't know which side I'd favor, hence the desire to be a fly on the wall at trial.

I do know that I'd like to hear the best arguments both for and against, but we all know that aint happening on an interweb forum.



I would in that instance call it cold bloded murder. First he had already taken one person out of the fight, dead. The only other person at that point that wasn't dead but shot, was bad enough that the one shot he did take, after being wounded totaly missed, it was taken at some 30-40 yards IIRC. The only two people not shot or dead were running away. He gave chaces and shot them, about 100 yards from where everything started. He could have let them run and taken that oppertunity to get the fuck out of there. That was his chance to escape the situation, there were no more threats immediate to him. The only diferance in the accounts, is who shot first. Thats why I say no matter what, those two are murder and there is no way around that. The lawyers will look for a way around, and with a madison jury pool.....they may find enough sympithetic ears. But I hope not.


ETA: Not to mention that in his own statment to police he said he ran up to the first person he shot and shot him again while he was on the ground. that's not self defense, thats failed execution.

By the way anyone know where I can get a blaze orange plate carrier cover for stand alone plates??
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 6:57:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 7:20:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BulletcatchR:
This is going to be a topic of discussion for awhile,and I won't let this discussion get ruined with racial slurs.
I 'm also going to ask for 1gunrunner's assistance in monitoring and dealing with code of conduct violations harshly.

bulletcatchR



Uh oh BC is pulling out the BIG GUNS

Good on ya BC!!!!
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 8:19:07 PM EDT
I'm kind of glad he's going with "self Defense" over that retarded "mental insanity" plea. If he would get insanity, he would have a happy life in a happy camp with lots of happy people. I think the self defense plea will go like a concrete raft. I just remember what happened to people like Jessie Anderson and Jeffrey Dahmer after they were convicted.

Some of the facts that come out may be interresting. I don't know how true it is or not but I heard he asked to hunt on the property before or something and was denied. Supposedly after that he came back with an attitude.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 9:22:06 PM EDT
All I'm gonna say on this... If Johnny Wishbone is shooting at you with his AK, runs out of ammo, drops the rifle and starts running away, what do you do? Shoot him because he is the enemy, or let him run away because he is unarmed? Say he blew up four of your buddies with an IED, now you corner him, but he's unarmed, what do you do? Each person will have their own idea on what to do. I know what I'd do, and it's not a politically correct answer.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 10:00:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Krazny13:
I have seen and dealt with Hmong poachers on my property. They dont give a shit and they pretend to speak no english if you catch them. And even if you do, they'll be back in 15 minutes or so. . . .




People who have been warned off of your property and persist, while armed, consititute a credible threat and in my opinion you are free and clear to engage at your own discretion.
I will affirm this stance from the jury box at every opportunity afforded me.

Link Posted: 8/29/2005 10:39:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:
IBDJ

(In Before Doc Jarhead)

IIRC, the venue hasn't changed, but the Jury pool is from Madison.

I'm still keeping an open mind. I'd love to be able to sit in on the trial.

-FMD
(hater of his own race)



I remember that thread.
I didn't say anything then, cause I didn't know the folks here too well and I had no dog in the fight.
At this point, I'd say we're friends enough to handle some discussion on the matter.

Doc Jarhead didn't articulate his point very well, and it was mired in unsavory rhetoric, but he had a point none the less.
There were many things unknown about the incident and we were left to do some assuming.
What we did know is that they were middle class, land owning white folks in semi-rural Wisconsin.

(I'll have to adlib, because I don't pay Ed for the priviledge of reading old threads, but ....)

When left to suppose their character, you portrayed them as probable "good old boys" who very well may have "put one across the bow" in an effort to "show that (epithet) who's boss."
{CHUCKLE, CHUCKLE} hand me another cool one Jim-Bob ..... sure thing, Bubba ......

Or something to that effect, .... like I say, I can't summon the thread.

This is in stark contrast to my intuition of folks in Wisconsin.
I expect that these were productive people with families, jobs, property and lots to lose.
I expect that they adhered to a fundamentally Christian value system, even if they weren't overtly Christian.
I assume that they were having a nice time on their limited vacation with friends, family and children and that they would have wanted to defuse and resolve matters without conflict; violent or otherwise.

The wife and I are trying to figure out where we're going to settle and raise our family.
We've been traveling around WI and screening areas.
Stop at lots of VFWs, go to Friday night fish frys, ..... try to meet some people.
Everywhere we go, the folks fit the picture I paint, not the one you painted.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 3:36:08 AM EDT
Middle-class Christians vs good-ole-boy rednecks

I don't know which one the victims were. I haven't read or watched any interviews they gave, if any. I have no dog in this fight, and I have never dealt with Hmong poachers. All I remember about the case is the summary from the first discussion shortly after it happened, and I haven't re-read that thread.

Having said all that, I think that either T-J or FMD could be correct. Throttle, I've handled overt "hate crimes" in small-town rural Wisconsin only an hour from liberal Madison. I've arrested residents in a local convenience store after they went up to a black person, got in his face, and used vulgarity and intimidation to tell the guy he needed to go back to Africa because he wasn't wanted in a good white town like ours. This was unprovoked and they'd never seen each other before. It was just about color.

My wife is a teacher in a different school district. She teaches a lot of Hmong students, and she says that generally they're among the hardest-working students in the grade, though English is a 2nd language for many of them. Their parents are hard-working legal immigrants who usually struggle to pay the bills working multiple low-paying jobs.

Racism is alive and well in Wisconsin. Just take a look at GF's now-edited racial slur. I don't think most Wisconsin's are overtly racist, but I've met some that are and don't care to hide it.

Did I read that Vang was a Captain in the US Army?

I don't know what happened. I think it's possible that Vang initially fired in what might have been legitimate self-defense...until you start chasing people down and shooting them in the back. That turns into murder, unless there are circumstances we haven't learned about yet. But I'm not ready to hang him for every death until I hear the whole story.

Of course, I assume the D.A. there has heard the entire story, and is charging him for all the deaths, not just a few of them. That says something.

So I agree with FMD in that I'll find the trial interesting. I hate how the lawyers get to argue about what the jury actually gets to hear, though. Sometimes so much is left out, that the jury isn't allowed to consider, that actually bears on the case, and you only get to know about it by reading the police reports or talking to the defendant--neither of which the jury gets to do.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 4:04:06 AM EDT
I remember the old thread too.

The difference, IMO was more of wanting to hear all of the evidence, testimony, etc before passing a judgement.

I'd like to hear/see all the evidence in the case myself. Not just what we've heard in the media. And not just what will be admitted into court.

I think he's guilty right now, but I'm open the possiblity that he's not. But there would have to be some major new/different evidence that hasn't been reported.

Do I remember right: Isn't our AG (Peg L.) supposed to be personally prosecuting this case?
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 4:30:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2005 4:56:18 AM EDT by BulletcatchR]
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 4:34:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2005 4:40:42 AM EDT by FMD]
TJ: I didn't advocate the "Bubba" position, rather I claimed it was a distinct posibility (based on real-world interactions I've seen between "normal, God-fearing Wisconsinites" *wink*, and Hmong) that would lend credence to Vang's story (of who shot first when the words got heated) if it is true (and that's a big "if" right there). I've never claimed that either party was guilty, but I have counciled paitience over the matter, taken a stance of waiting until we hear all the evidence, and have consitantly repudiated the idea that we need to "lynch the ****" (insert favorite Asian racial epithet).

If you want, I'll dredge up the archived posts, but I did have a dog in that fight, and remember quite clearly what took place. From my perspective, drawcut remembers correctly.

Back on topic:

The situation could be anything, and I'd rather wait to see what story the forensics folks come up with, rather than relying on anything else (including the currently released testimony/statements from those actually involved), before I make definitive conclusions. PTS is real and is bound to have affected ALL the statements made to Police without a lawyer present (which IIRC, is everything that has been made public so far).

As with everything else, this is IMHO, YMMV, and IANAL.

Edited 'cause I can't speel.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 5:03:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 5:07:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BulletcatchR:
I have a HUGE interest in how all the "forensic pieces" get put together.I watch my share of TV drama,,,I know what magic can be worked,and it doesn't sound from the story that he sanitized the site in any way.IIRC correctly,in Wisconsin a man was convicted of murder "from" bloodstains on a watch with no corpus.If the DA has any smarts this is the ONLY case they will present and ignore the rest.


bulletcatchR




No luck on the DA being smart, Peg the Keg is going to handle it. She's up for relection soon so ya jknow she's got to have something to balance out the drinking/pill popping and drinving.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 6:01:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:
If you want, I'll dredge up the archived posts,



No need.

My point: He was right, you exhibited a bias.
Your reply: No bias, I was quelling a lynch mob by telling them there COULD be an alternate ending.

Good enough for me, friend.

Link Posted: 8/30/2005 6:42:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2005 6:46:53 AM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]

Originally Posted By glenn_r:
Middle-class Christians vs good-ole-boy rednecks

Racism is alive and well in Wisconsin. Just take a look at GF's now-edited racial slur.



I certainly believe you that all manner of things DO happen here and we harbor all kinds of foul elements.
I maintain that the vast majrity of folks have a solidly-grounded moral compass.
It is statistically correct to assume good character over bad.


Further, I don't think that GF's statement necessarily constitutes racism being alive and well in Wisconsin.
If nothing had happened, and he was spewing epithets in a venomous tone, I'd grant it in a heartbeat.
But something DID happen, and people are emotionally enflammed about it.
In that context, I find it possible that the epithet is equivalent to cursing.
If he had said, "That F'n A-hole took head shots from behind! How is that self defense?" everyone would understand that he was angry and frustrated.

I don't know him; I can't say.


I completely agree that lawyers have convoluted the judicial system into something that rarely resembles justice.
Juries should have full disclosure, AND be able to ask questions and clarify issues.
Intentionally misleading jurors by presenting a tidbit and deleting all relevant context borders on criminal in my book.

FIJA.org
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 7:16:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2005 7:23:52 AM EDT by GlockFace]
Please excuse my lack of judgment in my former reply,i let my emotions get in the way.I was very mad at what this person did to all these families.Again,please forgive me,i was wrong.GF
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 4:38:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2005 4:44:32 AM EDT by glenn_r]
Brought back from the dead for two reasons:

Another thread started in GD

And I've read multiple reports that Vang is going with a self-defense angle after all. Stay tuned!

<------------ETA, we're talking about morals & putting a guy on trial for murder, and then this?
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 4:42:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2005 4:43:24 AM EDT by glenn_r]

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
I maintain that the vast majrity of folks have a solidly-grounded moral compass. It is statistically correct to assume good character over bad.



Yes, but it's not statistically correct to assume this in any event where the police get involved
Top Top