Hmong Man Found Guilty in Hunter Deaths

[Evel_Penivel]

Try to consider the facts of the case as they were presented to the jury. BTW, the shooting and trial took place in Wisconsin. Vang had lived in St. Paul, Minnesota.

 

1) Vang wasn't carrying a hunting rifle, he was armed with a semi-automatic military-style weapon that fires a 10-round clip.

2) He was 36 years old and had been in the U.S. for 20 years.

3)He was wearing a ski-mask.

4) He had climbed a permanent shooting platform on what was clearly marked as private property. Vang, as an experienced hunter, knew that permanent platforms aren't allowed on public land.

5)When told by a single hunter to leave the property by moving 100 yards east, Vang instead walked south, continuing deeper into the private property.

6) He became upset when another hunter - who confronted him as he was walking south - took Vang's tag number (hunting ID number on a large plastic tag attached to the back of his clothes.)

8) Six hunters were killed by Vang (five men, one woman) and two more were wounded. Among the eight, one carried a rifle and only one shot had been fired from it. Four of the eight, including the woman, were killed by shots to the back as they attempted to flee.

9) The so-called "racial slur" that was used against Vang was "mud duck," which is a mildly insulting term people in Wisconsin use about Minnesotans. It has no racial connotations at all.

10) Perhaps most damning of all, Vang admitted on the stand that only three of the six "deserved to die" for insulting him. Even if one buys the that it's name-calling gives him the right to shoot people, only three had done so. Five of the victims (three dead, two wounded) weren't even present when the "confrontation" with the unarmed name-callers took place.

 

To make any sort of argument that he was in any way justified in killing these six people is totally absurd. It reminds me of an old joke: A big (insert ethnic group of your choice) young man six foot five and 250 lbs, has mercilessly beaten a four-ten, 90 lb elderly (insert ethnic group of your choice) woman. The police ask him why he did it. "She provoked me," he answered. How could such an elderly woman provoke him? the police asked. "She said 'Good morning' in a really racist manner," he answered.

 

Also, the concept of a jury of one's peers stems from the idea that the guilt of commoners would be decided by other commoners, rather than members of the nobility. It has nothing to do with the ethnic makeup of the jury. Since there is no landed nobility in the U.S., everyone is everyone else's peer.

[Flashermac]

Interesting. Didn't see much of the background reported over here.

 

36 years old and in the US for 20 years. Means he was old enough to have fought against the NVA and Pathet Lao, since the Hmong had "soldiers" as young as 12. Still, sounds like the guy is a dangerous nutter who needed to be put away long ago!

[Guy Himmaparn]

Evel_Penivel said:

10) Perhaps most damning of all, Vang admitted on the stand that only three of the six "deserved to die" for insulting him.

Anyone hearing that testimony would come to the same conclusion as the jury... I heard a clip of it on the radio... very chilling.

[Guest]

 

Not anyone. As you can tell from a regular reading of this board, some people will never be convinced that Americans could ever be in the right. There are certain Eurotrash who thinks people like this Hmong piece of scum, should be given a medal for killing Americans.

[Guest lazyphil]

unfortuantly you are right, mind you these whites in minnesota are only 2/3rd generation swedes afterall, cut off from mainstream america for a 100 years or so in these parts they remain what their forfathers were, back woodsmen ::

[ALHOLK]

I am getting seriously tired of brainless rantings about Eurotrash.

 

Excert from the board rules (FAQ)

Participants shall not post any material likely to cause offence,

I therfor respectfully request that this individual is removed from the board.

[Board Mod]

Gentlemen,

 

please confine your posts to the topic at hand. Sniping at each other will result in this thread being closed.

[Guest]

 

It's okay Mr. Moderator. He's only pissed off because he can't send me anymore obscene PMs like he used to before I shut the PM feature off. If you ignore him, he quiets down after a while.

[ALHOLK]

As rules obviously apply differently to different posters I would be very inerested a more detailed layout of how the rules are interpreted.