Plot thickens regarding Wi hunter incident.


PDA






bg
November 23, 2004, 04:31 PM
Got this over the wire..You'll take note the AP makes sure all know it was
an SKS, caliber, operation type, etc. Usually its the gen "assault weapon"
tag. The anti's will play this up to the tilt..
http://www.yahoo.com/s/221519

If you enjoyed reading about "Plot thickens regarding Wi hunter incident." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.H. Lee
November 23, 2004, 04:34 PM
He's making a self defense claim:
HAYWARD, Wis. Nov 23, 2004 — A man suspected in the killings of six hunters told investigators he began firing after he was shot at first and some of the victims called him racially derogatory names, according to documents filed Tuesday.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=276782

cslinger
November 23, 2004, 04:37 PM
I don't claim to have all the facts but here is what I think I know.

The people killed were killed at varying ranges and many were shot in the back.

The hunters only had one firearm among them.

These two things alone sort of say to me that our boy went on a bit of a killing spree. It just doesn't look like self defense.

AGAIN THIS IS JUST HOW I AM INTERPRETING WHAT INFO I CURRENTLY HAVE. I AM NOT SAYING GIVE THE GUY THE CHAIR WITHOUT A FAIR TRIAL. It doesn't look good for the Hmong though.

John Hicks
November 23, 2004, 04:46 PM
Devil's Advocate:
Say he was shot at first and they (victims) had escalated the situation by surrounding him and yelling racial slurs. His claim of self defense applies to the shooter and the people immediately around him.

People fleeing or who were obviously unarmed are no longer a threat and the self-defense argument goes out the window.

It would be the same as if the cops show up at your house with the burglar halfway out the door and shot in the back. Tough circumstances to be sure, but does not look good for the shooter.

I agree with the assessment that this guy just totally lost his $^!t

That being said, I hope he rots in prison.

jh

spacemanspiff
November 23, 2004, 05:02 PM
i'm conflicted here, and will continue to be until (if) the entire story is told.

if the hmong guy is truthfully telling his side of the story, then it appears as if he had left the situation after confronted and called racial slurs, and only returned fire after they shot at the ground.
but thats where i stop having sympathy for him. maybe he could argue he panicked and assumed they all had weapons, i dont know.
if the group did indeed fire upon him, then i think the group holds the greater share of the blame.

however, if he is lying, then he did it in cold blood. he got multiple hits, on fleeing targets. he obviously knows his weapon.

but there are too many details missing.

rick_reno
November 23, 2004, 05:10 PM
Here is what CNN is reporting -

One of the men approached the intruder and asked him to leave, as Crotteau and the others in the cabin hopped on their all-terrain vehicles and headed to the scene, according to the account.

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

One of the men called for help on his radio, and those who arrived to help also were shot, authorities said.

He was "chasing after them and killing them," Deputy Tim Zeigle said. "He hunted them down." There was only one firearm among the eight hunters and it was unclear whether anyone returned fire, authorities had said.

2nd Amendment
November 23, 2004, 05:12 PM
It's really a moot point. The two survivors aren't going to back up the shooter's version. We have dead victims shot in the back and only one rifle among them. It comes down to nothing more than his word against that of his victims, with six corpses pointing their fingers at him. The jury, and I, will believe whatever the victims say.

milcaztra
November 23, 2004, 05:44 PM
I have little doubt that a few insults and racial slurs were thrown. Pack mentality is a powerful thing. So is ego and anger, but they don't justify all the killings.

The press has a way of not getting the facts right. Facts printed in the paper that I don't trust:
"Quotes" of police officers,
Facts on the crime scene -- number of weapons,
Any description of the events from either side.

itgoesboom
November 23, 2004, 05:58 PM
Where do I sign up to sit on this guys jury??

Honestly, I have a feeling they are going to ask for a change in venue in this case.

I.G.B.

Jim March
November 23, 2004, 06:03 PM
I have this possibility going through my brain that the first shot or two that the guy fired may (MAY!) have been justifiable self defense of some sort, or at least he thought they were (response to a warning shot sounds right) but then he figured that as a minority and solo against a group nobody would believe him, so he started hunting witnesses.

If that's what he was up to, kill everybody present and just leave, it might have worked except one of the victims radioed for help.

Like I say, just a theory...but it sorta fits available "facts" (which are pretty damn sketchy).

I think the odds that ALL the shots he fired were justifiable are extremely low.

The odds that *any* were justified isn't great either, but I can see an over-reaction to a warning shot being possible.

Standing Wolf
November 23, 2004, 06:23 PM
The anti's will play this up to the tilt..

Senseless deaths are what they live for.

Carlos
November 23, 2004, 06:24 PM
Man, I just don't know what to think. If one shot was fired in the direction of the intimidated and harrassed man, I could see how one could go postal. Doesn't make it right, though.

Need more input.

If it were me, and some redneck fired at shot at my feet, I would shoot back to KILL!!! No doubt in my mind.

Jim March
November 23, 2004, 06:38 PM
If it were me, and some redneck fired at shot at my feet, I would shoot back to KILL!!! No doubt in my mind.

Well yeah, the guy shooting. No question.

Hunt down all his friends, male and female, who ain't even armed?

:scrutiny:

That's not going "postal", it's going "Deliverance". If that's what happened, and the latest seems to be that's what HE'S saying, he's *toast*.

SPFDRum
November 23, 2004, 06:47 PM
Obviously the local media from Wisconsin and the twin cities isn't making it national.
Most of the individuals shot where chased down and shot in the back.
The shooter emptied a 20 round clip
Now here is the kicker for all the "he must be a victim" crowd- the St Paul Pioneer Press reported that the indivdual had time to remove his scope prior to shooting. Now that would be one cool character to take the time to remove his scope after he had been shot at and return fire. But more likely, he removed his scope for quicker target aquisition while chasing and murdering the hunters.
From the Pioneer Press
'It makes no sense'

As sixth hunter dies, sheriff offers details in attack, but motive remains unknown

BY TIM NELSON and KEVIN HARTER

Pioneer Press

Updated 12:07 p.m., Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004

"After walking about 40 yards, Chai Soua Vang began fiddling with his weapon and removed the telescopic sight. Suddenly, he swiveled around and opened fire, wounding Willers. The injured man was able to radio those in the shack and tell them he had been shot."

ReadyontheRight
November 23, 2004, 06:50 PM
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5100914.html

"...According to the documents, this is what Vang told investigators:

He was lost in the woods and climbed into an unoccupied deer stand. After about 15 minutes, another hunter came upon the scene, told Vang he was on private property and told him to leave. The man summoned his friends via radio. Others showed up, surrounded Vang and started using racial epithets.

Vang said only one of the people confronting him was armed. Vang said that as he turned to leave, he saw the man with the gun point it at him. Then, Vang said the man fired at him from about 100 feet, with the bullet hitting the ground about 30 feet behind. Vang said he knelt and fired twice. The man dropped.

Others in the group began to run, some through the woods and others to the ATVs on which they'd arrived. Vang said he fired more shots and others in the group dropped. He said he chased one man (believed to be Joey Crotteau) through the woods, firing as he ran. The man was yelling ''Help me! Help me!'' as he ran. Vang said that when he got to within about 15 feet of him, Vang fired again, and the man fell. Vang said he walked up to the man, heard him groan and then walked away..."

Maybe the first few shot by Vang were justified. Chasing down fleeing people who are screaming for help is not self-defense. Especially if done by the trespassor.

This guy's military experience may have kicked-in, but even if his side of the story is 100% correct, he was killing people he knew were defenseless in cold blood.

wingman
November 23, 2004, 07:06 PM
As our society grows in population we "seem to me" grow more angry in numbers, traffic, gathers such as ballgames, etc. My only thought is never
confront someone that has a weapon if doing so not in an angry manner.

Second unless we learn to control our anger in this ever growing population
we will turn that control over to government losing what little freedom we
have. :(

Jim March
November 23, 2004, 07:13 PM
Yeah, the *best case* scenario here per his own story, if the reporting is accurate, is he went about eliminating witnesses.

Worst case, it was all murder.

ReadyontheRight
November 23, 2004, 07:15 PM
How is this analogy any different than Vang's own testimony?

An armed man walks into your front door and sits in your living room easy chair. Your family is in the rec room downstairs. You walk upstairs to get more chips and notice Hmong man in chair. You yell downstairs "hey -- does anyone know this Asian guy with a gun in the living room?" Everyone yells "no" and runs upstairs while you pull out your CCW piece and tell him to leave. As he walks out, your extremely un-PC family yells racial slurs at the man and you fire a warning shot and yell "get moving" because he is moving very slowly and fiddling with his gun.

He turns and shoots you. He shoots your son. Your family runs and he follows them back into the house -- shooting all 8 of you. Some in the back.

He calmly walks around the neighborhood until being picked up by the police.

You might have an extremely racists family and a poor understanding of the right way to use your weapon, but he only had to shoot you and run to be safe. He murdered everyone else.

Silver Bullet
November 23, 2004, 07:22 PM
Jeez, I'm sick of people trying to justify their actions by claiming racial slurs as a justification.

2nd Amendment
November 23, 2004, 08:27 PM
Yeah...I was trying to avoid just flat saying it but the fact is, I don't care what they called him. Wahh. He was trespassing. Lost? My ass. And if you're lost you're going to climb up in an unknown stand and sit? OK, maybe it's just me but that would not exactly be my first course of action. And as a trespasser he's certainly not the first that has been encountered. It gets old fast, telling people to pack it in, and being insulted often as not

No, this whole story, and the justifications, reek. He went hunting and didn't care where he was. He got caught, it pissed him off. As he left he decided to get a little even. Maybe the other hunters did call him names. Maybe someone even DID put a rnd in the ground. Know what? Too bad. Better yet, maybe that someone put a rnd in the ground because they saw our soon-to-be-crazed killer removing his scope and had a sick feeling what was about to come down but lacked the conviction/guts to cap him then and there. Ever been in that sort of situation, though not necessarily life and death? I have, and had it been life and death I'd be dead because I lacked the faith in my own instinctive knowledge.

Ok, I'm rambling and in a bad mood...I'll shaddup now.

joab
November 23, 2004, 08:39 PM
Better yet, maybe that someone put a rnd in the ground because they saw our soon-to-be-crazed killer removing his scope and had a sick feeling what was about to come down but lacked the conviction/guts to cap him then and there. Ever been in that sort of situation, though not necessarily life and death? I have, and had it been life and death I'd be dead because I lacked the faith in my own instinctive knowledge. Rambling? Maybe, but that was my first impression when I read the story.
If there was in fact a round fired by the victim(s). But with modern investigative techniques, as shown on CSI, that will be easy enough to establish

P12
November 23, 2004, 08:42 PM
Not to cause thread drift here but, is it lawful to hunt with a 20 round mag. in WI?

Grey54956
November 23, 2004, 08:45 PM
I don't buy the pack-mentality idea, nor the surrounding the intruder and calling him names. This may work on the playground in grade school, but most folks I know wouldn't do this to someone who is carrying a weapon in plain sight. I don't care how many folks you have on your side, you aren't going to do this to an armed man. Likewise, if he's leaving, you aren't going to shoot at him and risk starting something.

I doesn't make sense.

det.pat
November 23, 2004, 08:55 PM
i think that most of these questions will be answered by the forensics. that will tell us whether the victim's rifle had been fired, if a bullet can be found in the ground where the doer said he was standing, etc. until then it's all conjecture.
pat

Daemon688
November 23, 2004, 09:10 PM
Everyone seems to claim they know what went down. Just like in the other thread where all the people were mis-reporting the news. We have no idea what words were exactly exchanged. We have no idea the exact sequence of events.

What we only know for sure is there is one man and six bodies. Anything beyond that is just making assumptions and you know what people say about assumptions. It'll be better to let the people actually on the crime scene to figuire it all out.

TallPine
November 23, 2004, 09:32 PM
If it were me, and some redneck fired at shot at my feet, I would shoot back to KILL!!! No doubt in my mind.
NO ... I think "you" better get off the redneck's property RIGHT NOW!

Hawkmoon
November 23, 2004, 09:47 PM
The odds that *any* were justified isn't great either, but I can see an over-reaction to a warning shot being possible.
The proverbial "shot across the bows" is reserved for the Navy and Coast Guard. Here on dry land, if you point a gun toward another person and pull the trigger, he is justified in shotoing back. Trespassing is not an offense justifying the use of lethal force. "Over-reacting" my foot -- how would he know if it was a "warning shot" or a miss?

Beyond that, I think there are probably some facts missing and I will await more complete and accurate information.

Rebeldon
November 23, 2004, 09:53 PM
The murder weapon that was used to kill six hunters wasn't an SKS "assault rifle" afterall. It was a Saiga 7.62x39. I read on SKSBOARDS.COM that the serial number of the rifle is H03104079. Check out the serial number on this Saiga at GUNBROKER.COM...

http://nas1.gbhinc.com/pixhost/2004-03-28/SamsCrown_1080845419_saiga762x3920-4.jpg

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=25797175

tc300mag1
November 23, 2004, 10:00 PM
What i want to know is if there was a shot fired out of the rifle at him ? i know Csi can tell if the gun was fired but will they be able to tell for sure with out a bullet on into the ground might be hard to find and lot of it destroyed.

Granted someone shoots at me i would probley smoke the shooter .. Course im on the oppsite end as a land owner luckly ive never had this problem 3 miles back to my property and the property in front of me would be better to trespass on .

joab
November 23, 2004, 10:12 PM
This was posted over at packing.org
Document: Vang Probable Cause Statement (Note: Contains Graphic Language) Part 1 (http://wcco.com/content/local_file_328153121)
Document: Vang Probable Cause Statement (Note: Contains Graphic Language) Part 2 (http://wcco.com/content/local_file_328153515)

Mark in California
November 23, 2004, 10:19 PM
Once hunting I became a might Bewildered when I walked somewhere in the fog. I was confused, and not anywhere near anything I recogized. If some had told me I was tresspassing, I would have responded, thank you which way off your property toward Ruth Lake.

That was not the reaction of someone lost. It was the reactions of someone looking for a fight.

tc300mag1
November 23, 2004, 10:31 PM
im reading the statments that were posted 1-2 post above my question how did these get out if they are the real thing... isnt this type of statments not released so you dont taint the jury pool and wouldnt it be a sealed court document ?

ReadyontheRight
November 23, 2004, 10:48 PM
Reading that statement is a lot different than the "self defense" spin the media are taking. By Vang's own admission from his side of the story, no one fired a shot until Vang "dropped to a crouch position". Presumably, this crouch position involves pointing his "Saiga SKS 7.62x39 caliber" (?) at the land owners.

By Vang's own admission, he suddenly turns around and points his gun at the land owners after trespassing.

By Vang's own admission, he shot people he knows were unarmed (and hid from people he knows were armed).

By Vang's own admission, he shot a man who was yelling "help me" in the back.

This guy needs to be punished.

I too, would love to wait and see the end of this after it's played out in the courts, but in our post-OJ world, the "It's the rifle's fault" and the "It's the insensitive redneck's fault" crowds have already cranked up their spin machines. I want to play out and discuss the true facts of the case and their implications as they come out.

milcaztra
November 23, 2004, 10:51 PM
Most likely no one will ever know the "truth" except the survivors, and their biases and perceptions will no doubt color their versions of what happened. Both sides can honestly say what they think happened, and the versions could still be miles apart. It's about perspective. And this is assuming that no one is knowingly bending the truth.

Still, shooting a bunch of unarmed people? No excuse for that. Serious jail time for sure.

Likewise, dropping into a pack mentality, using slurs and threats, and firing a "warning shot" in someone's direction is *definitely* the recommended method for getting an armed individual to peacefully leave your property. If it's true, the guy who fired the shot basically killed himself, his buddies, and his buddies' family members. Smart guy. I wonder if the toxicology report will show alcohol.

Most people aren't psycho or evil, but when you mix volatile words, strong egos, and guns, bad things happen. No one backed down. So, everyone in this is a loser, even us, with the broader reaching implications of this event.

artjs
November 23, 2004, 11:07 PM
I checked with an 'almost' DNR friend of mine (he decided to go county sheriff instead) about the round count allowed while hunting.

In fact I assumed the same answer of '5 rounds' or a maximum of 10 rounds, but my friend corrected me and said that there is NO ROUND COUNT in the state of Wisconsin for deer hunting.

Unfortunately still stuck in Wisconsin

Art :banghead:

R.H. Lee
November 23, 2004, 11:09 PM
Vang's account (if that is it in the links above) makes sense to me. He was walking away when the first guy raised a rifle and fired at him. If that happened, he had every right to shoot the guy with the rifle. After that, his self defense claim is no good IMO.

SPFDRum
November 23, 2004, 11:30 PM
Likewise, dropping into a pack mentality, using slurs and threats, and firing a "warning shot" in someone's direction is *definitely* the recommended method for getting an armed individual to peacefully leave your property.

Vangs account only. Now you want racial slurs, ride with me in the back of an ambulance some night. Better yet, be a LEO in a large urban area, where you are out numbered and out gunned.

Vang's account (if that is it in the links above) makes sense to me. He was walking away when the first guy raised a rifle and fired at him. If that happened, he had every right to shoot the guy with the rifle. After that, his self defense claim is no good IMO.

Again Vang's account only. All well and good until you get to the point where he removed his scope prior to shooting. I'll say it again, that is one cool character to take fire, have the ability to remove the scope, aim, shoot, and kill. While the whole time the individual in Vang's acount is just standing there. After he supposily fired the first shot.

Likewise, dropping into a pack mentality, using slurs and threats, and firing a "warning shot" in someone's direction is *definitely* the recommended method for getting an armed individual to peacefully leave your property. If it's true, the guy who fired the shot basically killed himself, his buddies, and his buddies' family members. Smart guy. I wonder if the toxicology report will show alcohol.

And you base this all on what an individual has stated while in custody with the advice of a lawyer. And/or all hunters must be drunk louts.

It seems that some people are so worried about their right to keep and bear arms, that they will grasp at anything to make this appear to be a justified shooting.

jefnvk
November 23, 2004, 11:43 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/23/hunters.shot/index.html

CNN's version

Some of those killed had multiple gunshot wounds. The shooter used an SKS 7.62 mm semiautomatic rifle, a variant of the AK-47, the sheriff's office said. That type of rifle is common among hunters.

At least there is some truth coming out of this. A news organization has finally said (or at least printed) that the SKS is a common hunting rifle. Can't help it they called it a variant, but its a start.

Then again, if it's a Saiga, all this goes out the window.

Also from the CNN report:

Vang said he also saw hunters coming toward him in an all-terrain vehicle, one of them carrying a rifle. Vang said he shot at them and both men fell off the vehicle.

Vang said when he returned to the site where the shootings began, he saw one of the men still standing.

"You're not dead yet?" Vang said he asked the man. He then shot in the man's direction but doesn't know if the man was hit.


After he WENT BACK, he asked the man if he was dead, and shot at him again. That seems that self-defense is far fetched at this point.

Yooper
November 24, 2004, 12:00 AM
8 victims + 1 rifle != self-defense.

Racial slurs? Talk is cheap.

SPFDRum
November 24, 2004, 12:06 AM
KARE 11 News in the Twin Cities is now reporting a change in Vang's story. At first he stated that they shot at his feet, now they are reporting he is stating the bullet went 400' to 500' past him. A wee bit a differance there. Just maybe the forensic people didn't find a bullet or shot scuff at his feet?

JohnKSa
November 24, 2004, 12:22 AM
Here's the police report:
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage1.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage2.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage3.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage4.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage5.pdfVang said only one of the people confronting him was armed. Vang said that as he turned to leave, he saw the man with the gun point it at him. Then, Vang said the man fired at him from about 100 feet, with the bullet hitting the ground about 30 feet behind. Vang said he knelt and fired twice. The man dropped.Inaccurate. Vang in his statement claims that he saw the rifle aimed THEN crouched, was THEN fired upon (bullet hit about 30' away--BEHIND him says Vang--don't ask me how he knows how far it hit behind him) and THEN he removed the scope and returned fire.All well and good until you get to the point where he removed his scope prior to shooting. I'll say it again, that is one cool character to take fire, have the ability to remove the scope, aim, shoot, and kill. While the whole time the individual in Vang's acount is just standing there. After he supposily fired the first shot.I agree--this is going to be the kicker. He would be totally unable to convince me that he felt his life was in danger and yet he still felt he had time to stop and remove his scope before returning fire.

I can see a person doing a lot of stupid things out of pure fear after being shot at--stopping to remove your scope while out in the open and being fired upon ain't one of them.

Then you get into his admission that he ran down a man he KNEW to be unarmed and shot him multiple times. He also admits to killing two people on an ATV but claimed they were armed--no weapon was found by police.Just maybe the forensic people didn't find a bullet or shot scuff at his feet?I was wondering about that--sounds like the evidence didn't match his first story... This guy is so guilty it's not even funny. He got P.O.ed and decided it was his turn. He thought about it, decided what to do, removed the scope for faster target acquisition, killed the guy with the gun and then set about exterminating all the people who called him names. The radio was his undoing...

BTW, not only is the gun related and therefore qualified to go in General Discussion, it may wind up being a very significant event in the history of American firearm ownership. I'm stumped as to why the original thread(s) got moved out of General Discussion to L&P...

effengee
November 24, 2004, 12:29 AM
Again, not all the facts are in but here goes another soap box statement:

Vang was trespassing plain and simple. Not just inadvertantly (uh-oh, I think I got lost in the fog) but blatantly (Here's a nice spot to hunt from)
When caught, a few humble apologies or even a "plastic" 'Boy, am I glad to see another hunter. I was lost until I found this here stand. So I figured I'd just wait here till somebody came.' He could have avoided having to murder a bunch of people. This wasn't self-defense. Vang was clearly trespassing and I'm sure got rather upset at being called out for it... Even being called names.
He knew he was trespassing and that it is against the law and that puts anyone in the wrong and deserving of a good tongue lashing...
You know darn well that somebody else owns the deer stand you're sitting in if you didn't build it yourself. Generally, most hunters know what respecting other people's property is all about... Given most of the facts that I have gained, Hmong living in the area have a disregard for hunting and fishing laws and use their immigrant status to generally annoy the hell out of the rest of the sporting population. Does that mean you point a gun at him while telling him to get off your land? Sure, if and only if you are willing to have him point one back. Do you fire a pot-shot at him while he's leaving?
Well, maybe if you're drunk, ignorant or just plain aching to start a fight, then yeah.
What would have been the best way?
Asking him to politely leave and/or giving directions, while keeping my firearm pointed safely...
Then I would have sat around deer camp with my friends.

I've had a few situations like this present themselves.
Times where I had to think:
Do I draw or is there a better way to solve this.
All the way to:
A few more pounds of pull and this guy is dead meat.

The anti-mentality?
I think we should ban Hmong's and any AK/SKS from importation.
This would end the problem of innocent hunters and their unarmed families being murdered.

Rebeldon
November 24, 2004, 12:59 AM
"Saiga SKS 7.62x39 caliber"?

Saiga does not make the SKS rifle. Like I posted before, the weapon was not an SKS. It was a Saiga 7.62x39.

proletariat
November 24, 2004, 01:25 AM
racial slurs, mob mentality, nothing new. This incident is reminiscent of what happened with the Vietnamese Fishermen in Texas who were killed during the 80s where it took U.S. marshals to protect them because of the hostility enacted towards them. Same thing except that was fishing and this is hunting.

IMO the shooter is a crack pot and murdering people is never justified but when you get this bully mentality going especially when others chime in when you probably have been racially taunted for most of your life I understand where his crackpot mentality anger which blew up is comming from. Just look to our riots in LA.

Some people say talk is cheap but others not from here have another saying "a cut from a knife heals but a cut from a word never does..."

Untill we solve this problem we'll never solve the rest.

joab
November 24, 2004, 03:30 AM
Some people say talk is cheap but others not from here have another saying "a cut from a knife heals but a cut from a word never does..." Yeah , but a bullet from a Saiga hurts like hell, sometimes for the rest of your life...

Ryder
November 24, 2004, 05:57 AM
If I was unarmed and running for the cabin after having just watched you shoot my brother, father, and or best friend you'd better kill me too because you are not getting out of that woods alive once I get to my rifle.

GSB
November 24, 2004, 07:45 AM
Might I remind everyone that this guy's story is probably a product of a little talk with a lawyer about self-defense laws and mitigating circumstances? What, does anyone actually think the guy is going to say, yeah, I killed at a bunch of guys and a woman whose land I was poaching because I'm a violent guy with a history of domestic abuse and don't like people telling me what to do? No, he's going to cry racism, self-defense, and any other defense that has even a chance at getting him positioned for the trial.

cracked butt
November 24, 2004, 08:00 AM
Pack mentality? Horsepucky!
If he had been in my stand on my private property at prime hunting hours and had been giving me grief about making him leave, I would have been chewing his arse out while dialing the sheriff on the cell. I wouldn't have used any racial words, but I would have been calling him much worse things.
:cuss:

Think about the hunters. They pay big bucks to buy land -land in Wisconsin typically sells for $2000 per acre, and people usually buy a minimum of 40 acres for hunting purposes. They have to pay taxes on the land. They probably spend alot of time on the land clearing brush, improving habitat, and probably planting crops for the deer. Deer season is only 9 days long here. If people want to hunt more than the opening and closing weekend, they need to burn up vacation time, making hunting that much more expensive. Now they walk to their stand at a prime hunting time- afternoon on an opening weekend and find some trespassing loser in their stand. The hunter has just lost a lot of invested time and money.

A person tresspassing and taking your stand is stealing from you. He's stealing your time and your money.


I do not buy Vangs story. he:
1. deliberately went onto private property and sat in a stand that obviously belonged to someone else.
2. removed the scope from his rifle in preparation of a shooting.
3. shot 8 people, only one of them armed.
4. killed 6 people, including a young woman.
5. ran after some of his victims and shot them in the back.


I find absolutely no reason to buy into his story, and I doubt a jury will buy it either, barring any evidence found by the Feds that showed the hunting party fired first, and the Feds will figure this out if it did indeed happened.

Langenator
November 24, 2004, 08:11 AM
Just a thought (and I wouldn't be surprised if somebody brought this theory up at trial): What are the odds, given that it was opening weekend of deer season in WI, that a shot was fired, not by Vang or anyone else there, but by someone on a neighboring parcel? Vang thinks he's under fire, and the rest is history.

Still doesn't do much for the whole removing the scope and shooting people in the back bit though.

publius
November 24, 2004, 08:20 AM
If you're lost, you don't try to shoot a deer from someone else's stand.

One of the media reports said this guy was in trouble for threatening his wife w/a gun in 2001, and had the cops out to his place twice this year for domestic disputes.

But maybe he was defending himself against her.

cracked butt
November 24, 2004, 08:23 AM
Just a thought (and I wouldn't be surprised if somebody brought this theory up at trial): What are the odds, given that it was opening weekend of deer season in WI, that a shot was fired, not by Vang or anyone else there, but by someone on a neighboring parcel? Vang thinks he's under fire, and the rest is history.

That was exactly my first thought on the whole ordeal.

Intune
November 24, 2004, 08:33 AM
If this is his story now after speaking with a lawyer then he needs to get a new lawyer 'cause his butt is toast. The sanitized version will get him life. As it should.

Hawkmoon
November 24, 2004, 08:52 AM
Might I remind everyone that this guy's story is probably a product of a little talk with a lawyer about self-defense laws and mitigating circumstances? What, does anyone actually think the guy is going to say, yeah, I killed at a bunch of guys and a woman whose land I was poaching because I'm a violent guy with a history of domestic abuse and don't like people telling me what to do? No, he's going to cry racism, self-defense, and any other defense that has even a chance at getting him positioned for the trial.
On the other hand, if you were one of a hunting party that had just engaged in maliciously hoorawing a furriner you found trespassing on your buddy's land, laughing like hell as your buddy fired a final shot to hurry the guy on his way once he started to leave -- do you think from your hospital bed after the guy killed six of your pals you're going to tell the cops "Yeah, we crowded around him, called him all sorts of nasty names, couple of us pushed him around a bit, and ole Jimbo sent a warning shot after him as he walked away"?

It is looking more and more like the Hmong has a lot to answer for, but I still prefer to wait for what comes out at trial.

milcaztra
November 24, 2004, 09:00 AM
I don't trust any of the accounts, but I think that they all contain some elements of truth. Some of Vang's own account makes sense, especially since his own version condemns him. There's no excuse for shooting unarmed people who don't pose any threat whatsoever -- the death penalty should be a consideration for something like this, if Wisconsin had it.

I agree that we're completely justified in talking a bit harsh to get a poacher off our property. But it's never a good idea to make the confrontation personal. Myself, I always stay polite but firm. Racial slurs aren't the issue -- the issue is escalating the argument with personal attacks that would in other circumstances cause a fight. I'm certain that no one here would point a rifle in someone's direction and/or fire on him just to make a point. Better to call out whatever LE agency has jurisdiction.

However, I know that people who are angry and surrounded by a bunch of friends sometimes do things that are a bit more aggressive than normal. I'm sure that everyone who's been around a little has seen this. It's a pack mentality, the same thing on another level that incites riots and leads to hate crimes. I'm not saying that this is what happened here, but the psychology is consistent. I also know that when a person is angry and releases it in a fight, he can lose control. I don't know if Vang is psycho or lost control -- either way, his actions were horribly wrong in every sense, and he needs serious punishment.

SPFDRum, been there done that in different contexts. I'm not trying to justify his actions, nor am I concerned with the loss of firearms rights. Look way beyond 2nd Amendment issues. When you have a shoot-out and/or murders between people from different groups, whether the difference is national, racial, cultural, religious, SES, or whatever, tension always results. People get angry and polarized. Everyone loses.

Race, property rights, firearms rights, and hunting culture aren't the issue. The issue is what mentality on both sides led to specific actions that in turn allowed the confrontation to escalate to murder.

This is a lesson in how not to resolve an argument between armed individuals.

CAPTAIN MIKE
November 24, 2004, 09:03 AM
Okay, maybe it's just me -- but assuming things went down like the defendant says, then I could see returning fire against the one armed individual but not hunting down and shooting in the back several unarmed people who were dis-engaging and running for their lives.

Smells to me like the self-defense assertion is a last-minute attept to paint his actions in the best light, but given the totality of the circumstances it doesn't sit right with me.

It will be most interesting to see what the wounded but surviving two members of the other group have to say at Trial. I suspect charges will be Murder 2nd Degree and/or Manslaughter.

ny32182
November 24, 2004, 09:59 AM
Wow... at lunch yesterday I found out a co-worker of mine went to high school with the owner of the land where this whole thing took place. Its a small world.

I'll say right up front that from available "info", I think Vang deserves to sit in prison for the rest of his life.

However. I do tend to believe that there is some truth to Vang's account of the events. Obviously he wasn't "lost". But, one of the news reports said there has been friction in the past between Vang's Hmong (sp?) minority and other hunters in the area. Even if we ASSUME that the group taunted and intimidated Vang, by himself, in the middle of the woods, and even if we ASSUME that his killing of the first hunter was justified, the others were not. By his own admission, HE CHASED after other members of the party that he knew to be unarmed and shot them. THIS is what he unquestionably deserves to go to jail for.

If I was unarmed and running for the cabin after having just watched you shoot my brother, father, and or best friend you'd better kill me too because you are not getting out of that woods alive once I get to my rifle.

No one wants to say it, but this thought had to have been playing a big role in everyone's mind. ASSUME for the moment that Vang's first two rounds were justified. He may have the upper hand for the moment, but he's still in the woods outnumbered at least 7 to 1. Those 7 people may not have guns on them at the moment, but you can bet they will, and in very short order. Put yourself in Vang's shoes. You've just had to kill one member of a hunting party in self defense, and the others are scattering. What do you do? Of course the correct answer is make a hasty retreat, and watch your back. You've got to assume, however, that any members of the party that pursue you intend to kill you, and you've got to react accordingly. However, obviously Vang didn't think like this... he thought he would eliminate that possibility right up front before everyone else had a chance to get to their guns. And obviously that isn't justified.

The thing that will hang him isn't the timing or the word of the survivors about when he removed his scope, etc... it will be his own admission that he CHASED other members of the party down and shot them.

ny32182
November 24, 2004, 10:01 AM
Also, legal or not (and we have a 5rd mag limit in SC) I've always assumed that I would have 5+1 in the gun, and a couple extra 20 or 30rd mags in readily accessable cargo pockets in the event that I ever get a chance to go hunting. Stories like this are all to common. :uhoh:

cracked butt
November 24, 2004, 10:09 AM
Stories like this are all to common.

Really, stories like this are common? I'd like to see some links to stories of hunters being shot in cold blood by other hunters.
:rolleyes:


Vang committed criminal tresspass, there is word that he probably didn't wear the legal garments for hunting in wisconsin, he murdered 6 people in cold blood, he shot people in the back repeatedly, most of his victims were unarmed, he shot a woman to death, and he chased down people who were running from him and murdered them.

I see no reason to ASSume that anything vang says has any truth to it. :fire:

cracked butt
November 24, 2004, 10:10 AM
I hope Vang gets the Jeffrey Dahmer treatment when he serves his time :fire:

ReadyontheRight
November 24, 2004, 10:11 AM
"Stories like this are all to common. "

I have NEVER heard a story like this. I'm sure the victims had not either, since they all came out unarmed.

tc300mag1
November 24, 2004, 10:13 AM
im still not buying the self defense crap and even if he felt he had to shoot the other becuse they would go back for guns and hunt him Down...

As i would if someone shot my dad in front of me.
Course i carry a handgun for hunting on me at all times but im straying from the point.

He could have Run period last time i checked the woods was a large place and somewhat easy to hide in.

Also even with the Pack meantality i dont think you would push around a guy and yell racial slurs at them who has a loaded gun.. I just dont think ya would not very smart if ya do Course i coud be wrong and they did but i think its more of a need to CYA now that i did this .. i can lie make it there fault and maybe only serve a little time

molonlabe
November 24, 2004, 10:21 AM
Sounds to me like he wanted to eliminate all the witnesses and the radio interfered with his plans. That probably led him to disengage. His report is probably a story and can probably be taken apart by a good interrogator.

and good point in the post above. Armed people are usually polite people.

ny32182
November 24, 2004, 10:21 AM
Ok, stories exactly "like this" aren't common, but there are lots and lots of hunting "accidents" that get minimal attention around here. Got to wonder if they are all really accidents... of course none of them are nearly as "sensational" as this one.

tc300mag1
November 24, 2004, 10:26 AM
This is the worst stroy i have heard of ... only thing close is where the guy was shooting a hunter every year hear in MI over 7 year i think it was till they caught him

BrokenPaw
November 24, 2004, 10:50 AM
Why are people still arguing over this?

In a normal he-said, she-said, your-word-against-mine criminal case, forensics aside, you have the victims claiming that the Bad Guy did thus-and-such-illegal-thing. And you have the alleged Bad Guy explaining that what actually happened was this other thing, which is wildly different from the victims' account. If you plot the stories on a number line, with the law at 0, and illegal stuff in the negative range, and legal stuff in the positive range, the victims' story will always put the Bad Guy in the negatives. And the Bad Guy's story will always put himself in the positive, 0, or weensy negative (say, -0.01 to -0.99, misdemeanor) range.

So the court's job is to plot those points, and assume that actual events lie somewhere in the closed interval described by those points. Maybe it's exactly as the victims described, and the Bad Guy should serve a two-week sentence for the rest of his abruptly-ended life. Maybe the Bad Guy's version is exactly true, and he only deserves a slap on the wrist, a fine, maybe a couple of weeks in the county lockup. Probably the truth is somewhere in between.

But in this case, the Bad Guy's own statement is so far into the negative, lock-his-arse-up-until-we-need-a-shovel-to-get-him-out territory, that it's pointless to wibble over it. Even if the court finds that the victims' statements are without merit, and that Vang's statement is 100%, swear-on-the-Bible true, he still needs to get a terminal case of electro-shock therapy. Or, in the case of a state without the wherewithal to treat him properly, the aforementioned cell-and-eventual-shovel treatment.

So why are people worrying about "the rest of the story coming out"? In most cases, that's prudent. In this case, the guy has already admitted to several murders, even if the initial shoot was justified.

-BP

GSB
November 24, 2004, 10:52 AM
Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/nov04/278124.asp

Homicide connection explored
Sunday's shooting has similarities to a 2001 killing 80 miles away
By JOHN DIEDRICH
jdiedrich@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Nov. 23, 2004

Law enforcement agencies are investigating if the man suspected of killing six deer hunters and injuring two others was involved in the unsolved slaying of a deer hunter three years ago in a nearby Wisconsin county, a detective said Tuesday.

Clark County Sheriff's Department Detective Kerry Kirn said he has exchanged frequent calls with investigators in Sawyer County since Monday morning.

"I can tell you we have been in contact with authorities from Sawyer County to address that," Kirn said. "It is premature to speculate if there is a connection."

On Nov. 23, 2001, Jim Southworth was shot to death as he hunted on family land 10 miles east of Neillsville in one of the only other homicides ever to be linked to Wisconsin's deer hunting season.

Southworth was shot twice in the back and both bullets exited his chest, an autopsy found.

Witnesses reported a pickup truck with three men inside on a road near where Southworth's body was found, about 80 miles south of Sunday's shooting.

The three men were described as Asian from 5-foot-4-inches to 6-feet. They were driving a silver or gray Nissan or Chevrolet pickup truck, possibly a late 1980s model with a light-colored fiberglass topper.

Chai Soua Vang, 36, of St. Paul, Minn., who is suspected of shooting eight hunters Sunday, is 5-foot-4-inches, according to a court document. Vang has owned a 1987 Nissan pickup, according to an online search service. According to court records, Vang allegedly shot several of Sunday's victims in the back.

The Sawyer County rampage was allegedly sparked by a dispute over Vang using a deer stand on private property. One of the theories Clark County authorities have been pursuing is that Southworth was shot after confronting a trespasser.

Officials said that Vang was hunting with two other people on Sunday, before he became lost and wandered onto the private property. Police are looking for those other people.

Vang did have an out-of-state license to hunt in Wisconsin in 2001, said Mike Bartz, a Department of Natural Resources warden manager. He also had a license in 2000, 2002 and this year, he said.

Kirn called the three people being sought in Southworth's murder "persons of interest."

"To our knowledge, those are the only three people who we haven't identified who were in that area that day," Kirn said.

Kirn said he could not comment on whether Vang has been or will be questioned in the Southworth case. Investigators from the state Department of Justice are investigating both cases, he said.

"They need to do their investigation and when all facts come out, and they will relay that to me, and we'll make the comparison," Kirn said.

The Sawyer County Sheriff's Department, the first to respond to Sunday's shooting, referred questions to the Department of Justice. A spokesman there declined to comment on whether a connection was being investigated between the two cases.

Told of the two cases, a retired FBI agent said his experience tells him that they could very well be related.

"The odds of the two being unrelated are astronomical, I would say," said Bob Dwyer, who now works as a private investigator in Florida.

But an absence of physical evidence in the 2001 case could make it difficult to prove such a connection, Dwyer said. The best way to tie two crimes together is to match weapons or bullets, he said.

Kirn declined to comment on what kind of gun was used to kill Southworth or if they recovered bullets in the woods where he was shot. A warden said last year that investigators were looking for casings.

The hunting rifle Southworth was carrying - a Ruger model 77 bolt action .03-06-caliber - was missing.

Old NFO
November 24, 2004, 11:02 AM
This was pointed out this morning. The VPC is already at it
http://www.vpc.org/press/0411wisc.htm

One wonders... nah, never mind... I don't even want to go there.

grumble...

gigmike
November 24, 2004, 11:03 AM
Pardon me if I missed this aspect in all the posts, but why isn't there an outcry for this to be investigated and prosecuted as a hate crime?!

It seems simple to me that if the assailant were white and the victims were of any other ethnicity then there'd be a national call for this to be a hate crime. Katie Couric would be broadcasting live from the tree stand. Why can an asian man shoot 6 people, several in the back, and be considered "confused" by the national press?

sturmruger
November 24, 2004, 11:09 AM
I grew up in NW Wisconsin about 45 miles from where this tragedy happened. I passed hunters safety with flying colors at the age of 12 and have hunted almost every year since then. I have been in situations similar to what this hunting party encountered. Whenever my hunting party came upon people that were hunting our land on accident or on purpose we were always as polite as possible. We didn't curse, or yell. We simply stated that they were on private property and asked them to leave. Everyone that happened upon our land was more then happy to leave and would usually apologize profusely for trespassing. If this party was anywhere close public land I am sure this wasn't the first time they had someone wander on to their property, I am sure they know how to handle this types of situations. Mr Vang’s claims of self defense seem to be just a pipe dream at this point. He admitted to far too many incriminating acts to be able to get off on the murder charges.

If you haven't read the court documents yet I would encourage you to read them they can be found in this thread and are very enlightening. I am interested to know why the FBI is involved?? Could they charge him with a federal crime of some sort??

As to the chances of him ending up in a WI prison I would say they are good. I doubt he is going to want to be in a WI prison he will most likely end up like Dahmer. If I remember correctly Dahmer was killed in prison after only 2-3 years. I guess WI does have the death penalty it just isn’t applied by the state. I still find it odd the criminal dislike mass murders as much as they do.

R.H. Lee
November 24, 2004, 11:19 AM
I'm not a hunter and never have been, so I gotta ask a question. Why would 8 hunters be in the woods and only one of them armed? I don't understand and am curious.

armoredman
November 24, 2004, 11:19 AM
Ha. Wait 'till you see what General Population inmates do to sex offenders, or even suspected sex offenders.....cons have kids, too.

cracked butt
November 24, 2004, 11:24 AM
Ok, stories exactly "like this" aren't common, but there are lots and lots of hunting "accidents" that get minimal attention around here. Got to wonder if they are all really accidents..

Ok, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt that your locale might be different than mine.

Every year, about 5 or 6 people die in Wisconsin during the gun deer season
about 1/2 of those are attributed to heart attacks/strokes
1/4 of the deaths are usually self inflicted
1/4 of the deaths are accidental shootings.

There are roughly 700,000 hunters who take to the woods in Wisconsin on opening weekend every year.

1 or 2 accidental shootings per year is too many, though not unexpected.

6 murders or any deliberate shootings is completely unheard of.

cracked butt
November 24, 2004, 11:29 AM
I'm not a hunter and never have been, so I gotta ask a question. Why would 8 hunters be in the woods and only one of them armed? I don't understand and am curious.

A couiple of probabilities:
-Most of the hunters might have been done hunting for the day and simply went along for the walk to confront a tresspasser.
-They might have been out picking up gear left in their blinds because they were going home at the end of the weekend.
-They might have been conducting a deer drive in attempt to fill the tag of the guy who had a rifle in his possession- perfectly legal hunting tactic in Wisconsin.

tc300mag1
November 24, 2004, 11:32 AM
RileyMc i would guess lunch time ? I havent seen any thing that listed time of shootings.. But i would say since he radioed back to the cabin to tell the other people.

Just my guess ..

I dont carry my rifle with me back to camp for lunch either just hand cannon.

Also if the guy radioed to say he was just gonna watch till the guy left and other comes to watch if he didnt say there had been anyprob they might have came out unarmed .. Again im just guessng

tyme
November 24, 2004, 12:54 PM
The plot is not thickening. He is an admitted murderer. If there were any justice, he ought to hang himself in his jail cell with his prison clothes.

This is a short version of Vang's statement:

According to Vang, before consulting a lawyer and after being mirandized twice...

He got lost, saw a blind, climbed into it, and was there for about 15 minutes. He was confronted by one hunter, who told him he was on private property; he said he hadn't seen any "no tresspassing" signs. The hunter radioed and 5 or 6 more people arrived. They swore at him and asked him to leave.

When he was 100 feet away, he looked back and saw someone pointing a rifle at him. He dropped to a crouch, took off the scope, and shot back twice. (2) The rest of the people ran for their ATVs, and he shot at them too. Two or three of them fell down.

A couple of the men who were still standing started to run away. He chased after one of them, who was yelling "help me!", and shot him in the back. He said the victim (believed to be Joey Crotteau) was unarmed.

He heard the others (between 1 and 3 at this point) radio for help, and saw another ATV with 3 more people. He reversed his coat from orange to camo, loaded another 5 or 6 rounds, but did not shoot at the people in this new ATV because they were armed.

The 3-person ATV left. An ATV with two people arrived (with Allan Laski and Jessica Willers), but went past him before stopping. The driver (unspecified) had a gun, so he shot at both of them 3 or 4 times.

He went back to the site of the original shooting, and saw someone standing. He yelled, "you're not dead yet?" and fired once, but didn't know if he hit anyone.

Then he wandered around for a while, threw the rest of his ammunition in the swamp because he didn't want to shoot anyone else. He then found someone on another ATV and got a ride back to a cabin where a warden was waiting for him.

spacemanspiff
November 24, 2004, 01:14 PM
but why isn't there an outcry for this to be investigated and prosecuted as a hate crime?!
because it isnt a crime to hate white people. but if i were to even utter the words "black", "hispanic", "jewish" everyone assumes its with malice or hatred.
its like were at the point where the majority of us are conditioned to think in terms of race/ethnicity as being derogatory.

kfranz
November 24, 2004, 01:43 PM
Hopefully it won't be, as "hate crime"s is a load of crap, regardless of who it's applied to.... :rolleyes:

milcaztra
November 24, 2004, 02:32 PM
"Hate crimes" have been going on as long as there have been differences between groups of people. It's only just recently that the phenomenon has found a name, specific laws, and a place in the FBI's UCR. Crimes are generally classified as acts/results, but "hate crimes" tie together various acts of differing nature and severity, all by motivation. Prosecuting this case as a "hate crime" would be inappropriate.

I'm not a hunter and never have been, so I gotta ask a question. Why would 8 hunters be in the woods and only one of them armed? I don't understand and am curious.

Hunting can be as much a mini-vacation or just hanging out with friends and family as anything else. Not everyone who goes on a hunting trip wants to shoot animals. Many just hang with family and friends. Of the hunters, not everyone always packs a firearm during breaks or leisure time.

FBI may be involved because Vang crossed state lines, and to check correlations with other shootings, eg, possible serial offenses because of the nature of this offense. May just be a presence in the case unless something more concrete pops up.

Cosmoline
November 24, 2004, 03:36 PM
The main question I have is, WHY ONLY ONE RIFLE?! You have seven folks hunting, but only one rifle. In Alaska if you had seven people hunting you'd probably have twenty firearms, not one. Is it common practice in WI for only the guy who's going to take the deer to be armed?

Edit--just saw the above response. It must be a very different culture over there. I'm surprised, since I hear there's a fair number of banditos and meth makers in the north woods. I for one can't imagine walking around the woods without some firepower, even if I don't plan on hunting.

TrapperReady
November 24, 2004, 03:58 PM
Is it common practice in WI for only the guy who's going to take the deer to be armed?


It all depends upon where you are hunting and what you are doing. For example, I was hunting (in WI) this past weekend. When out in the woods, I had a rifle and a pistol. Everyone else simply carried a rifle. Yu have to remember that Wisconsin has no provision for concealed carry, and the idea of open carry is theoretically legal, but as-yet untested in the courts. There is not a culture (among the general populace) of carrying guns for self-defense.

In our case, when we came back in to the house, everyone would unload and leave the firearms out in the garage. This was largely due to the fact that it was an extended family get-together, and inside there were little kids running around.

So, say it's noon on Sunday where I was hunting. At that time, even though there were 10 hunters, only two of us were actually in the field. Everyone else was back at the house either processing game, eating lunch or watching TV. If I'd keyed my Motorola radio and said that I'd been shot, unless I specified that there was some nutjob present and still shooting, I would bet that most of the folks wouldn't have bothered to grab guns first. They would have just hopped in the trucks and driven out to the stands, calling 911 on the way.

The fact of the matter is that this was one of those watershed events. Before this past weekend, trespassing normally was resolved if not politely, then at least without bloodshed. I would bet that from now on, anyone responding to a call for help will be far more likely to grab a gun first.

spartacus2002
November 24, 2004, 04:37 PM
I call BS on the allegations that they were calling him ethnic slurs. It just doesn't pass the common sense test that a group of hunters with only 1 firearm between them would call a man armed with an SKS a _____ anything.

R.H. Lee
November 24, 2004, 04:44 PM
I call BS on the allegations that they were calling him ethnic slurs. It just doesn't pass the common sense test that a group of hunters with only 1 firearm between them would call a man armed with an SKS a _____ anything.
I dunno. You can't discount the pack mentality. Plus, who knows the background and personalities of the victims? Were they goobers or regular working family men type folk? I don't know anything about Wisconsin or the makeup of the people there, but it seems there was tension between the locals and the 'hmong' immigrants anyway.

SPFDRum
November 24, 2004, 04:48 PM
It continues to grow....

NEILLSVILLE, Wis. (AP) - The Clark County Sheriff's Department is investigating whether there is a link between the man suspected of killing six deer hunters in northern Wisconsin this week and the unsolved murder of a hunter three years ago.

"We jumped on it right away, my detective who is in charge of this," Clark County Sheriff Louis Rosandich said Wednesday. "This incident which occurred in Clark County is not out of the minds of our citizens or anyone else."

Jim Southworth, 37, of Medford, was shot to death Nov. 23, 2001, as he hunted alone on family land 10 miles east of Neillsville.

Rosandich said investigators immediately got in touch with officials in Sawyer County to share information after six hunters were killed and two others wounded in a shootout Sunday.

"Of course the case which has occurred over in Sawyer County, it does certainly perk our interest, but it is too premature to make any determination as to a link to the Clark County incident of 2001," he said. "We're hoping that the information they gain may help us in solving our case."

An autopsy found Southworth was shot twice in the back, and court records say several of those killed Sunday were shot in the back.


Sketch of one of the suspects in the 2001 killing of Jim Southworth.
In the Southworth killing, hunters in the area reported seeing a pickup truck with three Asian men in it in the area where Southworth's body was found, Rosandich said. It happened about 80 miles south of Sunday's shooting.

The three men were described as Asian, from 5-foot-4 inches to 6-feet tall, driving a silver or gray Nissan or Chevrolet pickup truck, possibly a late 1980s model.

Chai Vang, 36, of St. Paul, Minn., who is being held on $2.5 million bond in the Sawyer County shootings, is 5-foot-4, according to a court document.

Citing an unnamed online search engine, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported Wednesday that Vang has owned a 1987 pickup truck.

Sawyer County authorities say a dispute over a tree stand on private property likely sparked this week's shooting, and one of the theories in Southworth's murder was that he may have been shot after confronting a trespasser. His body was found about 200 yards from his tree stand.

Vang, a St. Paul truck driver, had an out-of-state license to hunt in Wisconsin during 2001, said Mike Bartz, a Department of Natural Resources warden manager. He also had licenses in 2000, 2002 and this year.

Rosandich said his department has pursued numerous leads, but "nothing has really benefited us in getting any closer at solving this case."

"We've kind of been at this dead end since this case started," he said.

He said investigators handed out fliers and other information in Wisconsin's Asian community, but they were never able to even come up with possible identities for the men reported in the area.

Rosandich said officials from the state Justice Department already were involved in the Clark County case, and are assisting in the Sawyer County investigation. Justice Department spokesman Brian Rieselman said officials would not comment on a possible link in the cases.

Sawyer County Sheriff James Meier said he was unaware of any connection. "None, except for maybe the Asian connection. That is a lot of speculation," Meier said.

There is a $50,000 reward for information in Southworth's death

Zedicus
November 24, 2004, 05:06 PM
A lot of speculation yes, but intresting none the less.... :scrutiny:

M1911Owner
November 24, 2004, 05:42 PM
Hmmm... A pickup truck was seen in the area of the killing. He owns a pickup truck. He must be guilty. :scrutiny:

GSB
November 24, 2004, 06:31 PM
A pickup truck was seen in the area of the killing. He owns a pickup truck. He must be guilty.

Nice selective quoting. You conveniently omitted that it may have been the same make of truck covering the same years of manufacture, and that the incident, like this one, involved three Asian men (see my posting of a similar article on the previous page), and that the height description match. Not hanging evidence, but funny that you decided to omit that. The article, as mine, makes clear that no conclusions can be drawn at this time and that it's being investigated.

M1911Owner
November 24, 2004, 07:29 PM
Yes, I'll admit that I oversimplified that a bit too much. The posted story isn't jumping to unwarranted conclusions; it's merely pointing out possible connections, which may warrant further investigation. So I was premature about reacting to people jumping to unproven conclusions. :o

Richard G
November 24, 2004, 07:39 PM
The hunters only had one firearms among them. I'm betting its is illegal in that state to have a loaded firearm on an ATV (thats how the victims were moving around).

Chalk this tragedy up to another stupid gun control law.

bg
November 24, 2004, 08:45 PM
Nice selective quoting. You conveniently omitted that it may have been the same make of truck covering the same years of manufacture, and that the incident, like this one, involved three Asian men (see my posting of a similar article on the previous page), and that the height description match. Not hanging evidence, but funny that you decided to omit that. The article, as mine, makes clear that no conclusions can be drawn at this time and that it's being investigated.
That IS strange. It will be very interesting to see if ballistics match the
weapon. Stranger things have happened. Anyway you look at it, this is
going to be a real sad time for at least 6 families, maybe 7 this holiday and
the times to come. Very very tragic...:(

Cosmoline
November 24, 2004, 09:17 PM
Illegal to have a firearm on an ATV?!! That's pretty outrageous. My bet is a lot of folks in the woods are ignoring the gun laws for the time being.

litman252
November 24, 2004, 10:00 PM
QUOTE-
Illegal to have a firearm on an ATV?!! That's pretty outrageous. My bet is a lot of folks in the woods are ignoring the gun laws for the time being.

I believe, one county in N WIS it is illegal to transport any game with a ATV during the gun season.

Just what I heard. There are some -dumb- laws in the sate.
:fire:

tc300mag1
November 24, 2004, 10:10 PM
Here it is you cant ride a atv except to and from blind or transport of you gear or game durning the season.

i know other states are like this too

cracked butt
November 25, 2004, 07:27 AM
The law in wisconsin requires that a firearm be fully encased and unloaded while being transported by any motor vehicle- RV, ATV, Boat, Automobile.
If some of the victims rode out on ATVs, it would have been a big hassle to bring a rifle along, especially if they didn't have a gun rack/ ATV gun carrier.

PaleRyder
November 25, 2004, 07:34 AM
Actually, I'd not be surprised at all for a group like that to insult one person, even with that person carrying an SKS.
Any time you get a group of people together, they can quickly be influenced by someone in the group who says something stupid, falling into a mob mentality.
People confronted voters carrying weapons across the country during the election. Pretty bold considering one of them might have gone off. It didn't stop the others from confronting them however.
Still, this incident definitely is not self-defense.

SPFDRum
November 25, 2004, 10:28 AM
Any time you get a group of people together, they can quickly be influenced by someone in the group who says something stupid, falling into a mob mentality.

That would be all fine and dandy until you read the report a find out that most of the people didn't arrive until the first person was shot and called for help on the radio...

I'm starting to get it now, I must be slow on the uptake, Vang was just exercising his God given 2nd amendment rights. How silly of me to think this could be a massacre with most of the people shot in the back.

molonlabe
November 25, 2004, 10:35 AM
From all the available evidence my original hypotheses still stands.
1- He was attempting to eliminate all the witnesses
2- He was overwhelmed when they appeared when called by radio.
3- He decided to break off the attack as more people showed up. He cut and ran.

Other things that need investigation.
Where is the other two he was seen to be with also Asian? This was reported in the first days.

Is he or they also associated with the murder in 2001 80 miles away? Also three Asian men.

From a statistical point of view it is highly probable that the two events are related, but maybe not.

Could just be simply a group of mass murderers.

Now before I'm flamed for jumping to conclusions. Investigation is just looking at all possible scenarios to determine the truth, which is what everyone is doing in this thread.

ReadyontheRight
November 25, 2004, 11:28 AM
"Illegal to have a firearm on an ATV?!! That's pretty outrageous. My bet is a lot of folks in the woods are ignoring the gun laws for the time being."

That's the law here in MN too. You just get a hard-sided case that's like a big scabbard with a flip-up closure on the back.

Mitigated somewhat by also carrying a sidearm. You still cannot shoot game from your ATV, which I think is a good law.

ReadyontheRight
November 25, 2004, 11:30 AM
Funny how you hear all about the Saiga (at first reported as an SKS) that the perp used -- with all sorts of speculation as whether it's ethical for hunting deer or if it holds too many rounds, but we hear nothing whatsoever about the rifle the first victim used.

And some say the media isn't biased. :rolleyes:

Marshall
November 25, 2004, 11:39 AM
I don't have to be PC, fry his ass!

Old Pa
November 25, 2004, 11:47 AM
1. I live in Mn and have hunted MN and WI for grouse and deer for the last 25 years. I know the area in WI around where this happened and my former partner (and best man) lives and owns land within 25 miles of where this happened. In all my time hunting (although I avoid the weekends), I have never seen a native american or asian in the woods.

2. Since the early 1990s when Twin Cities church congregations and other such groups decided to "sponsor" Hmung immigrants to improve our "diversity" there has developed a pattern of regular and egregious game and criminal law violations by the Hmung in MN. These include killing song birds in city neighborhoods for the pot, garbage bags full of panfish from city lakes, deer and small game taken throughout the year, and numerous other offenses reported by the MN DNR and in area newspapers and media outlets. These are, of course, the acts of individuals and cannot be construed against all Hmung people. Since MN adopted an electronic license issuing system with central data base several years ago, I have witnessed license applicants including Hmung being turned away and being told to contact the DNR in St. Paul directly. I will be interested to know why Vang was hunting in WI and paying for a nonresident license there. Could his MN hunting privileges have been revoked?

3. The Saiga was derived from the AK, not the SKS, and was designed to be considered a sporting rifle. I believe until a couple of months ago the Saiga was subject to the assault rifle magazine ban and was only available with 5rd magazines. If it is true Vang had a 20rd magazine in his Saiga, where and when did he get this magazine and why was he using it for deer hunting? Successful deer hunting in my experience rarely requires more than a couple of cartridges.

4. It is incredible to me that Vang is claiming that between the time he was fired upon and when he first returned fire that he reversed his orange vest to camo and removed the scope from his Saiga.

5. My wife's family used to own 160 acres of abandoned farm land in northern MN on the Iron Range that was prime grouse and deer habitat. After I joined the family, a consensus came about to post the property against hunting rather than purchase insurance or risk loss of the land should anyone be injured or killed. After posting the land against trespass according to MN statutory requirements, I was up there for several opening deer season days contacting trespassing hunters to explain the land was posted against hunting and why. I would not dream of approaching an armed trespassing stranger and being anything other than completely civil. I was also well armed and ready for any response. The people I had to send away were not happy, but we kept everything civil.

ninenot
November 25, 2004, 01:01 PM
Old Pa--another poster states that the Saiga had a quick-release scope mount--all it takes is a flick of the thumb and the scope is dismounted.

I disagree with your thought that magazines 'should have limited capacity' for a couple of reasons.

First, the underlying predicate is that limiting rounds will prevent mass murders. That is false: mass murders will go on. It's the SHOOTER--not the weapon.

On a more practical note, it is not unusual for a hunter to use two or three rounds to kill a deer, rather than allowing the deer to run off and bleed out someplace. Yes, the marksmanship is an issue, but so is the humane kill.

Finally, all my Ruger semi-auto .22's have 10-round magazines. You want to eliminate those? Good luck. There are probably 2 million 10-round magazines (maybe 20 million) around the country just for Ruger .22's.

Old Pa
November 25, 2004, 01:45 PM
ninenot: I made and make no negative comment about hi-cap magazines; I own and regularly shoot with hi-cap magazines. I have both 10 and 25 round magazines for my two 10/22s. My comment was along the line of my experience that a five round magazine is 1) of sufficient capacity for the vast majority of deer hunting, and 2) resulted in a rifle that weighed less, balanced better, and was quicker handling in hunting circumstances.

I have seen and tried the Saiga's quick release scope mount. When securely mounted, it required my attention and dexterity to "simply remove". This is good and required in a detachable scope mount the shooter does not want to have fall off during normal movement. I know from being in stressful situations and my own ongoing training that attention and dexterity are not so easy for me to demonstrate after the bullets start flying.

I agree completely with your assertion that it is the individual and not the tool; I do not know how you could have taken any other meaning from my original words. I do not think we should have any disagreement on any of the points you raised.

Langenator
November 26, 2004, 12:27 PM
Modifying a Saiga to use standard AK magazines is not all that difficult to do, from what I understand. There's a website out there that details all the necessary steps to turn a Saiga into a standard confignuration AK, including allowing use of standard mags.

Alternately, I've seen pics in the shotgun section of a Saiga-12 one of the members here uses for 3-gun which features homemade 10 round mags.

Monkeyleg
November 26, 2004, 07:17 PM
Well, Chai Vang certainly gave the gun-haters some fodder. Here's an editorial from the Madison Capitol Times.

*****

?

Editorial: Blowing up gun myths

An editorial
November 26, 2004


At the risk of noting the obvious, Sunday's deadly confrontation between a semiautomatic weapon-wielding Minnesotan and a group of hunters in northern Wisconsin can and should be factored into debates about the availability of semiautomatic and automatic weapons.


When hunters in Sawyer County confronted the Minnesotan - a 36-year-old Hmong immigrant named Chai Vang who was in a deer stand on private property and told him that he would have to leave - several of the greatest myths that are peddled by opponents of gun control exploded.

To wit:



• Myth One: A semiautomatic weapon is just another kind of gun.

When he was told to leave, in what may or may not have been a racially charged incident, Vang is reported to have responded by opening fire with a high-powered semiautomatic SKS carbine. By the time he was done, six hunters - five men and a woman - were dead or dying. Two others were badly wounded. Several had been shot more than once. Though advocates for no-holds-barred gun policies will claim that just as much havoc could have been wreaked with a standard hunting rifle, that claim is nonsense.

Semiautomatic weapons are increasingly popular among hunters of a not particularly sporting ilk. But it is comic to suggest that they are needed for hunting, unless the targets are people. In northern Wisconsin on Sunday, the toll was higher because the shooter had a semiautomatic weapon.

Does this mean that we need a blanket ban on semiautomatic and automatic assault weapons from here on out? Not necessarily. There are subtleties in this debate - especially when guns are modified. But the debate ought to be more realistic than it has been up to this point, and what happened in northern Wisconsin on Sunday ought to be factored into the debate.



• Myth Two: When people are well armed and trained to use their weapons, they can protect themselves against gun violence.

The victims in Sawyer County had access to guns and knew how to use them. Most of the dead had long experience with their weapons. But they were not prepared for a confrontation with a man who was ready to kill and was carrying a semiautomatic weapon.

The notion that more guns will ever translate into less violence has always been absurd. But the incident on Sunday should remind everyone of the extent to which this fantasy can be deadly.

The point here is not to advocate for sweeping gun controls. This newspaper has always recognized the right to bear arms and we respect the hunting traditions that are so ingrained in Wisconsin.

The group of hunters who were attacked in the woods on Sunday had a right to bear arms. Initial reports suggested that most of them were exercising that right responsibly, although Vang's statement raised concerns about whether that was really the case. The Minnesotan claims that at least one of the Wisconsin hunters shouted a racial epithet at him and then shot at him.

The details of what really happened will have to be sorted out.

But the fact that volatile situations are made dramatically more dangerous when semiautomatic weapons are present should be beyond debate.

Sensible gun controls - perhaps in the form of a ban on hunting with semiautomatic and automatic weapons; perhaps in the form of a more sweeping restriction on the purchase of some guns - place some restrictions on the absolute right to bear arms. But such controls might well have saved at least some of the lives of those hunters.

The proper response to this deadly incident is a balanced one. Wisconsinites have a right to bear arms and to hunt, and that right ought to be protected. But they also have a right to be protected from weapons that are better designed for hunting people than deer.

TrapperReady
November 26, 2004, 07:35 PM
Monkeyleg - Posting something from the Capitol Times is pretty funny. :banghead:

Actually, if the writer wants to check the "rights" of Wisconsin residents, among them he will find Article 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution:


The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.


However, I'm sure that the Capitol Times is all for the "reasonable restriction" of that right. In fact the line about "place some restrictions on the absolute right to bear arms" is a travesty. The fact of the matter is that with very few exceptions, Wisconsin does not allow for any form of bearing arms.

As you well know. :rolleyes:

Thanks again for all your work to rectify our current situation.

ShaiVong
November 26, 2004, 08:14 PM
..No, Chai Vang is not a relative of mine.

ShaiVong
November 26, 2004, 08:20 PM
The victims in Sawyer County had access to guns and knew how to use them. Most of the dead had long experience with their weapons. But they were not prepared for a confrontation with a man who was ready to kill and was carrying a semiautomatic weapon.


uhhhhhhhh... Wasnt there only ONE gun amongst the 8 people? If they ALL had guns I'm sure this would have turned out MUCH differently.

Old Pa
November 26, 2004, 08:41 PM
And being law abiding and wearing their orange in the woods during gun deer season was of no particular comfort to the victims. Vang seemed particularly ready for that eventuality.

Stand_Watie
November 26, 2004, 10:29 PM
Just incase anybody was wondering..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

..No, Chai Vang is not a relative of mine

You're not Laotian are you? Even if your last name were Vang, I've come to the conclusion that many (especially Vietnamese) Asian surnames are so common that it would be like thinking a European descended person who's last name were Smith was related to some other Smith just because of their name. I'll bet there's a thousand guys named Van Nguyen just in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, none particularly related to each other other than being Vietnamese.

I have such an uncommon English surname, Wiggin (not Wiggins) that every other person in America that I've met with that surname was either a known relative to me or hailed originally from a part of the country (upper New England) that I knew they were related to me to one degree or another just by geography.

ShaiVong
November 27, 2004, 01:37 AM
You're not Laotian are you?

Heh, nope. I'm Irish, Portuguese and English.

Smokey Joe
November 27, 2004, 01:27 PM
of this, my WI friends tell me, is that the crime is notable enough that it'll be prosecuted directly by the state Atty. General. Who happens to be Peg Lautenschlager. Who is an appointee of Democrat Governer James Doyle, the person who vetoed the WI CCW bill. They both live in Madison, the capital city, which is a hotbed of knee-jerk, PC, liberalism.

Now, Doyle has already said that this crime "is not about hunting," so I wonder what he thinks it IS about, other than banning those awful assault weapons.

I wonder how much slack is going to be cut for the poor opressed Hmong?

cracked butt
November 27, 2004, 02:52 PM
Who happens to be Peg Lautenschlager

Another bad thing is that Lautenshclager has very low credibility in our state and can be pretty much be considered as "damaged goods" when it comes to being a prosecuter. She was picked up for drunk driving last year after she crashed a state owned vehicle while driving home which was about 100 miles away from Madison. Of course she paid for the use of state owned vehicles after she was investigated and found to have been using them for personal purposes several years- a major ethics violation.

The only thing she has done so far as AG in our state was to join in some bogus environmental lawsuit with other states against some out of state utilities. This is pretty telling when you consider that not 100 miles away from the Capitol, the Milwaukee Sewage district has beed dumping billions of gallons of raw sewage into lake michigan- an issue that no liberal in our state, nor any of the lefty environmental groups are willing to touch with a 10 foot pole, despite large amounts of public outrage. :cuss:


Having Lautenschlager prosecute Vang will probably be the biggest chance Vang will ever have for leniency.

Partisan Ranger
November 27, 2004, 03:47 PM
Yeah, get called a bad, racist name and that justifies shooting people in the back. :scrutiny

I don't care if those guys called him every racist name in the dictionary. Shooting someone for calling you names is a felony. Period.

Old Pa
November 27, 2004, 04:16 PM
For a WI county to be able to have the WI AG's office take over prosecution of a file probably means a proscutor with staff from that office will be assigned. Lautenshlager is the politico figurehead; she'll have someone else with actual trial expertise do the actual work.

Smokey Joe
November 27, 2004, 05:28 PM
I expect that you're right about Lautenschlager being a figurehead, and a real trial atty actually doing the work. My concern is that being a prosecutor, the atty in question actually prosecutes, and leaves the seeking of a lesser punishment to the defense, rather than pitching softballs because of the PC nature of the accused. Wouldn't someone else from Lautenschlager's office tend to be just as much a PC liberal as she?

I also hope and pray, that because the accused is a downtrodden minority, that somehow the use of a horrible assault rifle doesn't work against the other side, or against gun ownership in general.

We shall see, I guess. Certes, the media won't leave this one alone.

Old Pa
November 27, 2004, 05:48 PM
As the Gov and his appointed AG are the chief law enforcement officers for the state, as well as being politicos to the bone, my guess is that they will zealously prosecute Vang and any accomplices in this high profile multiple homicide for the max charge and penalty so as to best express to the WI electorate their fervent desire to be re-elected.

Monkeyleg
November 27, 2004, 06:14 PM
Doyle and Lautenschager hate each other. He just sat back and laughed when the AG was going through the wringer on the DUI and state car issues.

litman252
November 27, 2004, 06:51 PM
Sensible gun controls - perhaps in the form of a ban on hunting with semiautomatic and automatic weapons

Yep, there is no ban in place with this weapon. :barf:


The notion that more guns will ever translate into less violence has always been absurd. But the incident on Sunday should remind everyone of the extent to which this fantasy can be deadly

So, do you mean if there had been 8 guns for 8 hunters more people would have been shot in the back???

:banghead: :banghead:
--Going to buy more ammo for sks--
Tony

cracked butt
November 27, 2004, 08:15 PM
Doyle and Lautenschager hate each other.

I gues that is one example where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" certainly doesn't hold true.

one45auto
November 28, 2004, 07:39 AM
Jeez, I'm sick of people trying to justify their actions by claiming racial slurs as a justification.

So am I, and I suspect it is being done in this case for two reasons; 1) the media wants to portray all gun owners and hunters as negatively as possible, and, 2) the perpetrator (and no doubt his lawyer) desires to look like a victim himself in hopes that it will go over well with a jury.

From what I've read, this is not the first time the Hmong community has been at odds with the locals. Apparently there have been numerous clashes over thier (to quote more than one resident) "total lack of respect" for property rights. If the townspeople are to be believed, during hunts they wander freely onto private land as though they owned it and are extremely reluctant to leave.

Clearly, not all immigrants are successfully assimilating into our culture and it is past time that we required them to do so.

ReadyontheRight
November 28, 2004, 11:25 AM
"The notion that more guns will ever translate into less violence has always been absurd."

It seems to have worked for the armed members of the victims party that Vang did NOT shoot after he had shot the first victims and reversed his clothing to camo.

Also -- I read this morning that Vang is getting some high-priced lawyers from Milwaukee as his legal council. I'm sure that Vang, who lives in a modest house in St. Paul, drives a truck for a living and keeps chickens in his city yard, has plenty of $$$ stashed away for legal bills. :rolleyes:

Now just watch these slick attorneys get the case dismissed over some technicality. :fire: Also -- the race card will be in full play, driving an even bigger wedge between cultures. :fire:

Hawkmoon
November 28, 2004, 12:06 PM
Clearly, not all immigrants are successfully assimilating into our culture and it is past time that we required them to do so.
In response to a question raised a couple of posts above, it strikes me that THIS is what this case is really about.

IM Rugerman
November 28, 2004, 12:18 PM
This subject has been beat to death since it first aired.This thread is useless,so far nothing has been accomplished by it.It's a real tragedy that 6 hunters died(gunned down) while hunting,but life goes on.So far everything here has been speculation and opinions formed by the readers & reported by the media(they NEVER get anything right) & the sheriffs department.YES,he's guilty of a crime;let the lawyers & court system decide the crime and the punishment.Geeez,get on with your lives,shut this thread down.Enough is enough!

2nd Amendment
November 28, 2004, 12:32 PM
It's a Forum. Its purpose is for discussion. Most everything in every thread is opinion, assumption and belief. If you're not interested then don't read it, but for many it's the discussion itself that is as interesting as the event in question, or moreso.

Wildalaska
November 28, 2004, 03:21 PM
Clearly, not all immigrants are successfully assimilating into our culture and it is past time that we required them to do so.

No theres a pro freedom statement if I ever saw one! Lets FORCE people to conform!

Wildofcourseitpressupposesthatwecandefine"ourculture"Alaska

one45auto
November 28, 2004, 06:44 PM
No theres a pro freedom statement if I ever saw one! Lets FORCE people to conform!

Wildofcourseitpressupposesthatwecandefine"ourculture"Alaska

It never ceases to surprise me just how many people take the view that we, as Americans, have no culture of our own. Why? Because our nation is not as old as, say, England or France? Perhaps Italy? Must we wait a thousand years or so before we can claim one?

The simply truth is that we do have a culture, and one unique to ourselves. It's examplified in our writings, our Holidays, our beliefs, our culinary tastes, and so forth. It's baseball, football, fast food, barbecues, Bluegrass music, public libraries, the Constitution, the Declaration Of Independence, and our own peculiar slant on the English language ~ to name but a few. Every other nation in the world protects it's heritage and culture, so why not us?

Try moving to India and telling them that the stautes of Ganesh offend your Christian sensibilities and see if they'll remove or outlaw thier public display merely to avoid offending you. Or relocate to Italy and tell them you want a public celebration honoring the Fourth of July - just to make you feel at home. Better yet, buy a house in Israel and ask the city fathers to throw a celebratory pig roast.

It's no denial of freedom to demand that those who emmigrate to our shores come here knowing that this is the way things are and that they must be willing to accept it. It's no imposition to require that they speak the language either, or respect local customs like property rights, free speech, gun rights, and so on.

Believe me, something is seriously wrong when you pull up to a McDonald's drive-thru and the girl at the window speaks so little english that she cannot understand a request for ketchup. It's even worse when she calls over the manager and he not only speaks a different tongue than she does, but moreover knows even less of our language! What if a customer suffered a heart attack and tried to ask them to telephone for an ambulance? What if they themselves needed to telephone police or emergency services?

We used to be a melting pot, but since the fire under the cauldron (namely a common culture and language) was removed we've become nothing more than a chunky stew. Theodore Roosevelt said it best when he remarked:

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans…The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

Freedomv
November 28, 2004, 10:23 PM
Very well said, one45auto. I could not have said it better.
Vern

Hawkmoon
November 28, 2004, 10:26 PM
Quote:
Clearly, not all immigrants are successfully assimilating into our culture and it is past time that we required them to do so.


No theres a pro freedom statement if I ever saw one! Lets FORCE people to conform!

It's not about "freedom," it's about law. All so-called civilized societies represent contracts between/among the citizens. The contract is an agreement to abide by the rules (laws) enacted by that society, by whatever means that society uses to enact rules/laws, or accept the consequences. The United States of American is a society that long ago "agreed" (contracted) to allow individuals to own property, and to have the right to control who may or may not enter onto/into their private property.

If what we're reading in the follow-up articles to this shooting is true, it appears that many Hmong people still choose to ignore the rules/laws of a country to which they came voluntarily, and whose laws they specifically agred to follow when they were granted permission to live here.

I don't have a problem if they wish to speak their language among themselves, I don't have a problem if they wish to wear native dress, I don't have a problem if they wish to worship God using a name other than Yahweh. I DO have a problem if they decide they have a right to enter onto MY private property without my express permission. That is illegal, and it's called "trespassing." It's sort of like the old saying that "Your right to freedom of expression ends when your fist hits my face."

Wildalaska
November 28, 2004, 11:01 PM
t's baseball, football, fast food, barbecues, Bluegrass music, public libraries, the Constitution, the Declaration Of Independence, and our own peculiar slant on the English language ~ to name but a few. Every other nation in the world protects it's heritage and culture, so why not us?

And its soccer, Chinese New Year, St Pattys day, reggae, rap, hockey, blintzes, chow mein,Christmas, hannukah, Kwanzaa, along with such englishisms as:
Hasta la vista baby (spanglish)
Head honcho (japanese)
schmuck (yiddish)
gung ho (chinese)


Point being is that our "culture" is such an amalgamation of all the worlds people as it is almost undefineble

Believe me, something is seriously wrong when you pull up to a McDonald's drive-thru and the girl at the window speaks so little english that she cannot understand a request for ketchup.

Perhaps the worngness is that our nice American kiddies look down on menial jobs like Mickey Ds, while immigrants have no problem gettin out there and working....and if they dont speak perfect english...o well, they are working they will learn

I detect just a hint of rascism in this thread,,,,


WildnihowmaAlaska

one45auto
November 29, 2004, 02:04 AM
I detect just a hint of rascism in this thread,,,,

Only if you define racism as any criticism, however justified, of either a minority or thier actions.

PaleRyder
December 3, 2004, 10:39 AM
Here in Indianapolis, a man yesterday kidnapped his own mother at knifepoint, and tried to force her to take 4,000 out of the bank. He was arrested without getting a chance to harm anyone.

This jerk was supposed to be serving a 20 year sentence for manslaughter, shooting man to death in 1989 during an argument, and had been paroled after only serving 8 years, I think.

Why the *&^% is anyone who kills another person in manslaughter let out of prison early?

And why are those convicted for horrible murders not hung the next morning?

Gunsnrovers
December 3, 2004, 11:00 AM
My family is made up of post WWI immigrants on both sides.

To me the biggest difference between then and now is in what our schools teach. My wife is a teacher in Inglewood, CA and has been for 14 years. I have substituted there many times. In the past, the US was called a "melting pot". For more then a few years, the children here have been taught that the US is a "salad bowl". Everyone gets to maintain their seperate and unique taste and flavor.

Phantom Warrior
December 3, 2004, 11:47 AM
Perhaps the worngness is that our nice American kiddies look down on menial jobs like Mickey Ds, while immigrants have no problem gettin out there and working....and if they dont speak perfect english...o well, they are working they will learn

Speaking as a middle class, WASPish, educated (most of the way), white guy with over 4 years at McDonalds I take exception to that remark. There have also been plenty of nice American kids working at my fairly menial jobs at two college dining services and a grocery store deli. American kids often look for better jobs, but it is definitely "racist" to say that they all think they are too good for menial jobs. Some may, but not all.

And its soccer, Chinese New Year, St Pattys day, reggae, rap, hockey, blintzes, chow mein,Christmas, hannukah, Kwanzaa, along with such englishisms as:
Hasta la vista baby (spanglish)
Head honcho (japanese)
schmuck (yiddish)
gung ho (chinese)


Point being is that our "culture" is such an amalgamation of all the worlds people as it is almost undefineble

False, on two points. One, in a certain sense every culture is an amalgamation to some degree. For example, the English language in general, not just English in America, is descended from Latin, German, and...French? It's continued to morph even further. Every try reading Old English? But it all happened 500 years ago so no one brings it up. Cultures are the same way. They grow and incorporate elements from other societies. To single out the facets of American culture that are currently in flux and claim that as a result American has no culture is ridiculous.

Two, a lot of the things you mentioned are things some Americans celebrate, but are not really considered "American." For example, I celebrate Christmas, eat chow mein, and like hockey (thanks Katie...), but don't celebrate St. Paddy's Day, don't eat blintzes, and hate rap. So, does that make me American or not American? The fact that we are such a melting pot (or stew or salad or whatever) guarentees that there will be things observed or practiced by parts of our society, but not by all of it. But the fact remain that there are certain things that are undeniably American. Baseball, football (the kind with tackling and quarterbacks), the Fourth of July, and everything else one45auto said.


Finally, there is a certain expectation that members of a society observe basic norms. Speaking the language is one. Observing the laws is another. If you move to China and expect to be able to speak English to everyone everywhere all the time and pack your 1911 all the time you will be sadly disappointed. Why should we not expect the same of people here?

2nd Amendment
December 3, 2004, 01:58 PM
I detect just a hint of rascism in this thread,,,,

I won't say what I detect :fire:

pax
December 4, 2004, 02:13 AM
Just have to say here that like everyone else, I'm appalled at this news story. Feel bad for the families of the victims and worried about the ammunition this incident has handed gun-control people.

You know what depresses me about this on a personal level, though?

It's completely ruined one of my favorite stupid songs, Tom Lehrer's The Hunting Song. :uhoh:

I hate that.

pax

Wildalaska
December 4, 2004, 02:30 AM
To single out the facets of American culture that are currently in flux and claim that as a result American has no culture is ridiculous.

Theres a difference between the concept of "no" and undefinable...

But the fact remain that there are certain things that are undeniably American. Baseball, football (the kind with tackling and quarterbacks), the Fourth of July, and everything else one45auto said.

Sorry you cant pick and choose what you like and use that to define a culture...for example I hate football...does that make me unamerican? How bout a Hmong guy, cant speak a whit of english, but does the rice paddy squat in his back yard watching the Packers on TV with a Green bay hat on....well then hes an american....Baseball bores me....but my Japanese wife is a baseball freak and walks around with a Mariners hat on...she likjes to go to 4th of July picnics while I could giuve a hoot....shes the American.neh?

By the way.....is anyone gonna seriously argue that our immaigration laws dont have a rascist origen?

WildunwashedmassesAlaska

Geech
December 4, 2004, 02:44 AM
Sorry you cant pick and choose what you like and use that to define a culture...for example I hate football...does that make me unamerican? How bout a Hmong guy, cant speak a whit of english, but does the rice paddy squat in his back yard watching the Packers on TV with a Green bay hat on....well then hes an american....Baseball bores me....but my Japanese wife is a baseball freak and walks around with a Mariners hat on...she likjes to go to 4th of July picnics while I could giuve a hoot....shes the American.neh?

Does everyone living in China, France, or Italy think and act the same way? You apparently missed an important element in his post: Every culture in the entire world is draws from many different sources. I'll also take this opportunity to make the incredibly bold statement that no culture applies completely and universally to everyone who considers himself/herself part of that culture.

JDThorns
December 4, 2004, 03:42 AM
But after reading sll the post, true or not 1 thing comes to mind.
VC flashback. they used the same tstics on us in Vetnam. JDT

cracked butt
December 4, 2004, 05:50 AM
But after reading sll the post, true or not 1 thing comes to mind.VCflashback. they used the same tstics on us in Vetnam. JDT

He would have had to been maybe 5 or 6 years old when the Vietnam war was ending?

c_yeager
December 4, 2004, 05:51 AM
But after reading sll the post, true or not 1 thing comes to mind.VC flashback. they used the same tstics on us in Vetnam. JDT

Um, not to be a jerk or anything but, according to this article the man is a Hmong from Laos. If he participated in Vietnam at all it would have been on OUR side. The hmong served along side out special forces with distinction and honor and made a difference in interrupting the NVA supply train through Laos.

Just because he is from SE Asia doesnt make him one of the bad guys. Assumptions like that lend some (minimal) credence to the man's story.

Oleg Volk
December 4, 2004, 11:33 AM
For more then a few years, the children here have been taught that the US is a "salad bowl". Everyone gets to maintain their seperate and unique taste and flavor.

In reality, today's immigrants assimilate much faster than most did around 1900 or so. As for the inability to use standard English or any facsimile thereof (sorry about the use of a Euro term), all of the students I've had who suffered from such a dysfunction were native-born Americans.

Yooper
December 4, 2004, 11:47 AM
The question I keep coming back to is: What was Vang doing there? According to reports I've read, he owns 40 acres of land in Minnesota so he must have some concept of property owner's rights. He is of Asian origin, if he has a thin skin where racially oriented comments are concerned, why would he put himself in an area where encounters with other (probably armed) individuals, almost certainly non-Asian, are likely? Under those conditions, it seems reasonable for a person to take great care to hunt only on public lands and avoid trespassing at all costs.

I owned a dairy farm in northern Wisconsin several years ago and I hunted there with my invited guests. Every year it was necessary to evict at least one, usually more, trespassing hunter(s) who "wandered" onto the farm in spite of the signs posted and the fact that the nearest public land was 10 miles away. It got to where I almost dreaded the arrival of deer hunting season and the inevitable confrontation(s).

2nd Amendment
December 4, 2004, 04:11 PM
In reality, today's immigrants assimilate much faster than most did around 1900 or so. As for the inability to use standard English or any facsimile thereof (sorry about the use of a Euro term), all of the students I've had who suffered from such a dysfunction were native-born Americans.

That's nice.

Assimilate more quickly? I'd love to see some stats to back that up(assimilation meaning aquiring language and social skills, not whether they band together in communities).

I'd also love to see some stats to back up the language claim. Locally we have a sudden influx of Mexicans. Each group has an appointed spokesperson, the rest are lucky to manage "Hi" and "Bye". Some haven't accomplished much more after two years here, and for some, this working in customer service! Also we've got a pretty good population of "arabs" at area colleges. Either these folks can't speak English well(if at all) or they truly enjoy insulting Citizens with their other-lingual antics.

No, while I always hear people complaining about how someone is trying to say "How good it used to be" I'll say I am tired of hearing about "How good it is". We had problems "then" but we also have problems now. Thing is we have a higher population density, a greater total number of immigrants and less societal demands placed upon them to fit in...or to even try...today. Also, 100 years ago they came here for a better life grown from the sweat of their brow. Today too many come here for a better life based on free education and fedgov handouts.

They have no goals, other than easy street, and no respect for the US. Yes, there are exceptions but at this point they are increasingly just that: Exceptions. It's a new set of problems but they are very real and denying their existence or slapping PC labels on them won't make them go away.

Smokey Joe
December 6, 2004, 12:07 AM
Hey, Pax, "no one" remembers Tom Lehrer any more! :) Hadn't thought about that song for years, but now that you mention it, this incident ruins it for me, to.

Hey everybody else, please quit arguing about what is/isn't American and whether you/your adversary are/aren't. You're all correct, and none of you is correct. You're being like the blind men and the elephant in the poem.

Fact is, we just don't know all the facts in this case. Nor how this one case relates to other incidents. Nor how our particular experience in a less-or-more similar situation applies. We may never know, but the trial is likely to bring out at least some approximation of the truth.

After that will be soon enough for intelligent discussion.

I too am concerned about what the antis will do with this, but we will have to wait and see; there is little to be accomplished by idle speculation.

I too wish heartfelt condolences to the bereaved. That is one thing of which I am sure.

Art Eatman
December 6, 2004, 09:08 AM
Aw,now Smokey Joe, there're a bunch of folks who remember Tom Lehrer.

I have most of his albums, plus a songbook. Guess I'll have to dig them out to refresh my memory.

The difference between me'n'pax is that I first heard them when they were new.

:), Art

tyme
December 6, 2004, 01:05 PM
This reduces to the same problem involved with labelling Muslims "terrorists" or police "pigs". What percentage of the named group has to be "bad" for that label to be appropriate? 25%? 51%? 95%? 100%?

And is there a gradient of "badness"? Can you call police "pigs" if 20% of them are corrupt, drug-dealing murderers, but not if 20% of them merely fail to enforce the 2nd amendment in the face of state and federal laws? Does that require a higher percentage?

Similarly, can Muslims be denigrated if 20% of them explicitly call for violent jihad, but not if 20% of them merely state their support of sharia in the U.S. but fail to call for violence?


Then there's the issue of other people in the group not denouncing the wrong-doers. Either way, the group and its leadership lose. If they denounce evil members, some people consider that an admission that somehow the group is responsible for the evil, because the group acknowledges that the evildoers were members rather than some rogue element. If there is no denunciation, others consider that to be tacit support of the evils committed by the evil subset of group members.

Sawdust
December 6, 2004, 01:10 PM
Aw,now Smokey Joe, there're a bunch of folks who remember Tom Lehrer.

I prefer "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park", myself. :D

Sawdust

pax
December 6, 2004, 04:12 PM
sawdust,

My oldest kid knew all the words to that one before he was five years old.

My little sister is a 2nd grade schoolteacher down in California. When we went to visit them, my son treated her to a performance of the song.

You should have seen her face. "Horrified" doesn't half cover it.

pax

why_me
December 6, 2004, 04:20 PM
NM stupid thought. it is not Tom Lehrer the news broadcaster

c_yeager
December 7, 2004, 02:01 AM
Hey, Pax, "no one" remembers Tom Lehrer any more! Hadn't thought about that song for years, but now that you mention it, this incident ruins it for me, to.

I have the collection on CD and i'm 25. Of course my parents were a little odd.

Sawdust
December 7, 2004, 11:21 AM
pax sez:

You should have seen her face. "Horrified" doesn't half cover it.

For even more fun have your son sing Tom's "We Will All Go Together When We Go" to your sister:

When you attend a funeral
It is sad to think that sooner or later
Those you love will do the same for you
And you may have thought it tragic
Not to mention other adjec-
Tives, to think of all the weeping they will do
But don't you worry

No more ashes, no more sackcloth
And an armband made of black cloth
Will someday never more adorn a sleeve
For if the bomb that drops on you
Gets your friends and neighbors too
There'll be nobody left behind to grieve

And we will all go together when we go
What a comforting thought that is to know.
Universal bereavement, an inspiring achievement
Yes, we will all go together when we go

We will all go together when we go
All suffused with an incandescent glow
No one will have the endurance to collect on his insurance
Lloyd's of London will be loaded when they go

Oh we will all fry together when we fry
We'll be french fried potatoes by and by
There will be no more misery when the world is our rotisserie
Yes, we will all fry together when we fry

Down by the old maelstrom
There'll be a storm before the calm

And we will all bake together when we bake
There'll be nobody present at the wake
With complete participation in that grand incineration
Nearly three billion hunks of well-done steak

Oh we will all char together when we char
And let there be no moaning of the bar
Just sing out a Te Deum when you see that ICBM
And the party will be "come as you are"

Oh we will all burn together when we burn
There'll be no need to stand and wait your turn
When it's time for the fallout
And Saint Peter calls us all out
We'll just drop our agendas and adjourn

You will all go directly to your respective Valhallas
Go directly, do not pass Go, do not collect two hundred dollahs

And we will all go together when we go
Ev'ry Hottentot and ev'ry Eskimo
When the air becomes uranious, we will all go simultaneous
Yes we all will go together, when we all go together
Yes, we all will go together when we go

:evil: :D

Sawdust

Smokey Joe
December 7, 2004, 07:07 PM
C yeager--Mu kid is about your age; he considers me more than a little odd. (Isn't that part of being a parent?) But then, so do most of my contemporaries.

When I was in hi school, thinking Tom Lehrer was cool, shocking to "the establishment," etc, was standard. Actually liking his songs (or, heaven help us, admiring his use of the English language) was considered odd even back then. I always did appreciate his sense of how to make a rhyme.

"Heh, heh, well, Sonny, 'way back then..." Gee whiz, I sound like some doddering old coot.

... (pause for reflection)

So in my cootishness, I'll say, re. the origin of this thread: Bad things come and bad things go, and the worst we could do to each other would be to delight our adversaries by falling to useless bickering amongst ourselves.

insurgent
September 10, 2005, 05:40 PM
Gee, only 10 months for the trial to start:
Self Defense (http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=9616648&src=rss/domesticNews)

Smokey Joe
September 10, 2005, 07:41 PM
Hmmmm. You get a speedy, public trial, according to the Constitution. Well, this one sure will be public. Anything having to do with lawyers seems to take twice as long as real people would take.

As far as the delay, for my part, I want the defense to have ALL the time they want, and everything else they want. I want the prosecution to dot ALL the I's, cross ALL the T's, go the full 9 yards and one extra, make absolutely certain the defense gets 4 copies of everything, and publicly ask 'em if there's anything else they'd like.

What I'd hate to see is any sort of reasonable excuse for a sucessful appeal, in the event of a "guilty" verdict. (In that event, there will certainly be an appeal; there just shouldn't be any GOOD reason for it to be successful.)

Hope the judge in charge keeps a firm hand on the proceedings and doesn't allow any sort of circus atmosphere. "Up North" in WI they don't get a lot of Page One murder trials.

My WI buds tell me that the state Atty. Gen. of WI is prosecuting this, and if she screws it up her political career is over, so, absent a colossal blunder, there is little fear of that occurring. Yes, she doesn't practice as a regular thing, (she's out of practice practice! Hah! :D) but she'll have any number of assistants who actually do prosecute regularly.

They're importing a jury from the State Capital, liberal Madison. Good. This is at the behest of the defense. (Remember, we want the def. to have everything it asks for, for the trial!) There ARE some people in Madison who are not so prejudiced as to assume that a minority person is automatically innocent. Or guilty.

Cosmoline
September 10, 2005, 10:58 PM
Hmm. I don't remember any evidence of the victims firing a shot. IIRC there was only one guy with a rifle among them.

Still, calling an edgy Hmong veteran with an SKS bad names is high on the list of things you should never, ever, ever do if you want to live a long life :D

beerslurpy
September 10, 2005, 11:47 PM
It was a saiga, not an SKS.

If you enjoyed reading about "Plot thickens regarding Wi hunter incident." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!