Hmong/Deer hunter shootings

[longeyes]

when the Teddy Bears have their picnic...

Moral: Don't go out in the woods alone--that means UNARMED.

This tragedy would have taken a different turn if more than one of the slain had serious iron.

 

[50 Freak]

To tell you the truth, I don't care if Vang was Hmong, White or even Martian. He may have been in the right killing the guy who had a rifle (as I see that as valid self defense). He was totally wrong when he chased down and shot people in the back. And I hope he sits in jail for a long time for that.

Way I look at this, is one (armed) hunter was in the wrong place (whether by accident or intentional). He's confronted by a mass number of (mostly unarmed) numbskulls goating him on. Confrontation happens. Darwinism is again proven.

 

[El Tejon]

Charles S., well, you say "chasing down" but you're getting that phraseology from the media who got it from the prosecution!

Perfectly legal to shoot an unarmed man as he is racing for his weapon to kill you. Police do it all the time.

If Vang were facing an armed mob of 6 fellows, his self-defense claim would be even stronger.

I find it amazing that we have on THR a thread about a pizza delivery man who allegedly shot a man running away and we have comments in support of him or comments about his shooting. At the same time we have this case and "HE'S GUILTY."

We'll see what happens. However, this case is yet further evidence that the words "self-defense" are not magic that allow one to avoid Problem #2. Outside the fantasy land of the gun shoppe ("shoot 'em all, they'll give me a medal"),the real world is a demanding mistress. [Devil's Advocate]

 

[johnnymenudo]

Being right but dead is a poor tradeoff. The hunting party had every right to do what they did, but they escalated the situation with an armed individual, when it was pretty clear that chasing him off had the desired effect initially. By Willers own testimony, it wasn't until the rest of the group showed up, surrounded Vang, and threatened to turn him into police that things deteriorated. Were they right to ask him to leave since he was trespassing? YES. Were they within their legal rights to get his tag number and turn it into police? YES. Did they have to get angry at him and become confrontational. NO, but we can all understand how this could happen under the circumstances. Was it smart to re-engage, confront and threaten an armed individual who was leaving the area peacefully? No.

I have had trespassers on my property in central WI - and I try to be as friendly and non confronational as possible. If you politely inform them that they are on your land, but could understand how they might have gotten lost, most people will take the out and be happy to move on. If they had let him leave when Willers initially approached him - they would probably all still be alive.

JM

 

[longeyes]

Perfectly legal to shoot an unarmed man as he is racing for his weapon to kill you. Police do it all the time.

For valid self-defense, with lethal force, you have to be in legitimate fear of your life or grave bodily harm. Vang had an SKS, the people he shot, save one, had nothing. Some were fleeing. He chased them. That's self-defense? Please.

 

[Charles S]

but you're getting that phraseology from the media who got it from the prosecution!

El Tejon, you are incorrect. I have followed this case from the onset. Long before the prosecution got the case.

Read the original article published in Outdoor Life.

Victim accounts along with evidence indicate that Vang pursued his victims, running them down and shooting as many as four of them in the back as they attempted to flee.

Outdoor Life

Perfectly legal to shoot an unarmed man as he is racing for his weapon to kill you. Police do it all the time.

You have any evidence that this was the case. I seriously doubt Vang did, nor do I believe that he cared.

Let's not forget the past history of this guy either, if you can believe the media police have been out to his place for domestic violence calls at least twice, including one where he put a gun to his wife's head and threatened to kill her.

I have read extensively on this case. I have dealt with trespassers and hotheads before. I will not confront a trespasser without backup.

Charles

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Most people who have watched this case closely agree that Vang has no claim to self defense. If Willers fired his gun, then maybe he can claim self defense for shooting Willers, but even that will be a long shot. By all accounts the land owner was rude and abusive and used racial slurs, but that wouldn't even come close to justifying the use of lethal force on him, much less the seven others who were shot. By all accounts it seems like Vang just wigged out and started shooting.

From today's testimony it seems clear that even the defense isn't expecting anything other than life in prison for Vang, that is unless they drop a bombshell on Thursday when Vang testifies.

 

[orionengnr]

longeyes, post #48

+1

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just in case anybody has forgotten, here is Vang's own testimony regarding the incident (as reported by the media):

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.

Link to original discussion at THR mentiong above quote

 

[sturmruger]

Wow Wow Wow

Guys the last hour I have been listening to Laurence Hesebeck's testimony on CourtTV's website. It is absolutely amazing to hear!! This Vang is going to prison for a long time. He is so guilty I can't even remember hearing a more open and close case. Self defense should not even be uttered in the same sentence.

 

[goalie]

Fact: In WI, it is illegal to have a permanant deer stand on public land

Fact: Vang had hunted in WI for years

Fact: Vang was tresspassing

Fact: Vang entered a permanant deer stand that could not legally have been on public land


Whether or not you want to include Vang's apparant prior disregard for the law, the facts support the notion that Vang was knowingly a tresspasser on private land. To compare a tresspasser to a pizza delivery guy is simply ridiculous, and to ignore the fact that the landowner paid a lot of money to own land that is useable for hunting only a few days a year is also wrong.

The lesson I get from all of this is to make damn sure you are armed when confronting some scumbag tresspasser who is, in effect, stealing your hard-earned hunting time on your expensive land.

 

[Ryder]

Moral: Don't go out in the woods alone--that means UNARMED.

You got that right! I'm not a pack hunter but I wouldn't dream of stepping into the woods unarmed. If these people had displayed an ability to defend themselves from the start this guy wouldn't have dreamed of doing anything to excite them.

I am having a hard time understanding why he thinks claiming self-defense against a warning shot will gain him any sympathy. To kill someone who has fired a warning shot is dastardly. In my view a warning shot negates the ability to shoot the first shot out of fear you might be shot since they have purposely missed you. You're being allowed the opportunity to vacate.

I've have been on the receiving end of a warning shot. I couldn't get away fast enough! Thoughts of retribution were not an issue.

 

[Kjervin]

I am not a landowner, and I have never chased someone off my land, but it seems to me that if he was leaving anyway, it was a mistake to reengage him. I get the feeling that they wanted to make sure he was intimidated, and they did. Oooops. I guess Vang felt that if he was in for a penny, he was in for a pound. I might not be so convinced that those people running away were not going to try to get their guns and intercept me before I got out of the woods. I ain't sexist either because I know a woman with a gun can make you just as dead as a man could. So I look at it this way:
1) Vang was in the wrong place
2) He was asked to leave and was leaving
3) The property thought that wasn't good enough and wanted to "talk" with him (why, if he was leaving anyway)
4) the property owner and his buddies got all touchy feely with him.
5) Vang may not have known how many hunters it would take to kick his tail, but he had an idea how many they planned on using, and he knew hew had no friends nearby.
6) the first two became six, if he let the runners go, how many would they bring back?
7) I guess he chose to take them out while he had the advantage or maybe he was just pissed because they were trying to intimidate him.

to me, the legal issue turns on why he shot the runners. Unless Vang can convince a jury he had good reason, he is going to spend the rest of his life in jail. The lesson I would take would be a) don't try to intimidate armed people. b) don't assume armed people won't shoot you just because you are unarmed. c)Since they didn't just let Vang walk away, he returned the favor. I think both groups would be better off if either group let the other walk away, but neither could, so both are worse off.

Kj

ps- if you have a group which are threatning me, and I have to shoot one of you, I'm gonna shoot all of you until I am sure I can get away. You don't like it, don't point guns at me.

 

[torpid]

What I've learned from this whole sad case is that with trespassers, bullhorns are your friend.

.

 

[goalie]

ps- if you have a group which are threatning me, and I have to shoot one of you, I'm gonna shoot all of you until I am sure I can get away. You don't like it, don't point guns at me.

Then I hope the next time you are tresspassing the landowner just kills you instead of letting you leave. If you don't like having people point guns at you, then stay off private land during hunting season. Pretty simple, eh?

 

[TallPine]

I wouldn't dream of stepping into the woods unarmed.

Which is one reason why a gun is always on my belt at home, because the instant that I step out the door, I am in the woods (my woods).

That doesn't mean that I might not also have a rifle in my hand, especially if I'm going out to check on something.

 

[50 Freak]

I am having a hard time understanding why he thinks claiming self-defense against a warning shot will gain him any sympathy. To kill someone who has fired a warning shot is dastardly. In my view a warning shot negates the ability to shoot the first shot out of fear you might be shot since they have purposely missed you. You're being allowed the opportunity to vacate.

I have to disagree with you buddy on this one. If someone is shooting at you, how do you determine it was a "warning shot"???? Someone shoots at me (especially after a tense verbal confrontation) I'm firing back with everything I got. I don't have time to determine if it was a "friendly" shot or not.

Where Vang f*cked up is when he started engaging the other people and chasing them down and shooting them in the back.

I wouldn't dream of stepping into the woods unarmed.

That's why even if I go backpacking in a National Park, I take along my 10mm Glock (I know it's illegal ). Not really for the four legged critters, more so for the 2 legged ones. They're the ones you got to worry about.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

This isn't a special project for the rainbow coalition, this is a mass murderer.

I agree totally with that.

This guy trespassed on private property, chased people down in the woods, shot them in the back, and even reloaded during the process.

It is a shame someone didnt just kill this worthless piece of ???? in the field, and let the buzzards pick his bones clean.

 

[goalie]

Where Vang f*cked up is when he started engaging the other people and chasing them down and shooting them in the back.

No, he messed up when he showed blatant disregard for other people's private property and tresspassed. If you go tresspassing during deer season, you cannot afford a temper. It also appears that if you are a landowner and want to confront tresspassing scum unarmed, you cannot afford a temper either......

 

[O.F.Fascist]

Kjervin,

Oooops. I guess Vang felt that if he was in for a penny, he was in for a pound. I might not be so convinced that those people running away were not going to try to get their guns and intercept me before I got out of the woods. I ain't sexist either because I know a woman with a gun can make you just as dead as a man could. So I look at it this way:

My thoughts exactly.

 

[longeyes]

And if someone fires a shot in your general direction do you just continue on your way and assume they mean you no harm? Or do you assume that they mean to do you harm and take appropriate actions to protect yourself?

What you do is take a DEFENSIVE posture. You don't chase people and shoot them in the back. You remove yourself from the scene while protecting yourself from further attack. This is emphatically not what Vang did. He went into attack mode.

 

[Kaylee]

I just deleted a couple posts because they were getting too personal.

If you see yours missing, kindly sit back, take a nice break, realize it's just the Internet....

... and please reread the Forum Rules.

-K

 

[Titus]

It also appears that if you are a landowner and want to confront tresspassing scum unarmed, you cannot afford a temper either......

Is the way they pushed up on this guy when he apologized and tried to leave the way we recommend people handle themselves when carrying a gun? Do we teach people to:

Hesebeck said Vang tried to walk away once, and Crotteau's son, Joey, blocked him because Robert Crotteau said he wasn't finished talking yet.

Hesebeck said at one point Robert Crotteau told Vang, "You keep it up, I'm going to kick your a--. You come back, I'm going to kick your a--. Better yet, I'm going to report you to the DNR (state Department of Natural Resources). Maybe that will teach you."

No, we expect them to go out of their way to not escalate a situation and put up with stuff even if they're in the right. Well, they wanted to be tough guys about it, but didn't even remember Rule 1 (bring a gun to the gunfight, especially if you know the other guy has a rifle). Do you think Willers would prefer to be able to say "Well I was right!" or have his daughter and friends back? (Though, of course, both witnesses claim Willers was letting Vang go, and it was the others who wanted to press the issue.) If you're going to push, you got to remember things might not work out the way you intend or expect.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I am having a hard time understanding why he thinks claiming self-defense against a warning shot will gain him any sympathy. To kill someone who has fired a warning shot is dastardly. In my view a warning shot negates the ability to shoot the first shot out of fear you might be shot since they have purposely missed you. You're being allowed the opportunity to vacate.

Whoa, Nelly!

I'm not buying the self-defense thing because there are two versions here: Vang says Willers fired at him, Willers says he was just holding his rifle (sort of at port arms). We don't know which was true.

But ... do you mean to tell me that you can tell the difference between a warning shot, and a miss? I can't. Warning shots are illegal. I would not be in the position of occupying anyone else's tree stand, but I suppose it's possible that I could inadvertantly wander onto private property and encounter an irate landowner who won't accept "I'm sorry, I'll leave now" as an answer. Anyone who fires a shot in my direction had better expect incoming very quickly. If a shot was fired, that does make returning fire (at the shooter) self-defense.

 

[Kim]

Are warning shots really illegal???????????????I don't understand how this is so. Must shoot to stop always mean hit the person. Really???????