Hmong/Deer hunter shootings

[gc70]

I don't know about this case, but I have lived in several states. In all of those states, the legal self-defense laws ran something like this:

If a person (or persons) invaded my home, posed a deadly threat to me, then turned and ran away, I would have some tall explaining to do for shooting them in the back (even if they were armed), and no explanation would be acceptable for pursuing them and shooting them in the back.

YMMV, depending on where you live.

 

[Kjervin]

Goalie,
I guess since I don't intentionally trespass, I don't worry too much about your hypothetical landowner. However, if he does point his gun at me, maybe he would be wise to go ahead and shoot. I work really hard to make sure I do not point my muzzle at anything/anyone I do not want to destroy and I assume another armed man would know enough to do the same. Therefore, if he covers me with his muzzle, I assume he wants to destroy me. I'm just not good enough to dodge bullets anymore, so I'll just send mine first. 'kay.


My point is still that if they had just let him leave, they would all be alive today. If Vang had just let the runners go, thinkgs would have turned out better for all concerned as well. In the moment, however, neither group seemed to be able to let things go, so we have instead a tradegy.

Kj

 

[The Slug]

Quote:
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.

You're kidding, right? Defensive posture!? If I've just been in some kind of confrontation with a party and I know at least one of them has a gun and I hear a shot how the H-E-double hockey sticks am I going to know if it was in my "general direction"? Shot's in my "general direction" are going to be answered! Defensive posture, my A$$!

Vang will almost certainly spend the rest of his life behind bars and he deserves at least that punishment. Willers, on the other hand, definitely should have been smarter in the way he dealt with the situation. In my opinion he needs to take some responsibility for his actions leading to the deaths of his daughter and friends. I'm not saying it's his fault but he had the power to stand down and he chose instead to escalate and he's going to have to live with that.

The thing that really alarms me is how vociferous some of you are about defending your land against trespassers. I own hunting land in the woods and occasionally see other people out there without permission. If I have a problem with it I'll politely address it with them. Angry confrontations with armed people is exactly the kind of situation that we are trained to avoid when getting a license to carry. Why should it be any different when you are in the hunting woods? If further action is needed I'd let someone else (the police) confront them.

The attitude of some of you land owners is frightening! Is your hunting lease or game operation really so valuable that you'd risk or threaten the lives of others to defend it? Is trespassing so scary to you that you'd risk not going home to your family to enforce it?

 

[cracked butt]

The thing that really alarms me is how vociferous some of you are about defending your land against trespassers.

Wisconsin gun deer season is only 9 days long, and it can be considered a cultural event in this state. Many people in this state put up huge sums of cash to buy hunting land, six figure prices for a 40 acre parcel of good hunting land are the norm. When you put up that kind of money and put a lot of work into it along with the anticipation for the 1 week of hunting that you get in this state, you get pretty pissed awfully quick when you find some jackass sitting in your stand ruining a day of hunting for you. I have zero sympathy for Vang when he was confronted, he blatently tresspassed during a week of the year when its really important to know the boundaries.

 

[Kim]

Property rights are a very fundamental right to many in this country. Tresspassing in not looked at as a minor thing. Most who live in areas where this is a passionately held right know how to act in these situations. If you are smart you beg forgiveness and say I'm sorry over and over as you leave and swear you will never be back. Yes it is in rural areas where people despise tresspassing. But it is also in those areas where people respect others rights more. People in cities do not have the same enjoyment of rights as those in rural areas. Rural people are not used to seeing people walking right outside their front doors. It is so unusual you wonder what is up. It is not normal. By the time the police got there if they would even come the tresspasser would be long gone. Most people do not report tresspassing as it is unnecessary. The tresspassor leaves and the problem is solved. Even the tresspassor if they leave with a few bruises does not report it. As they know they are in the wrong. I know of at least three armed episodes where tresspassors were ran off the farm. Once the police was called as the thugs were held at gun point. Once they left with wide pupils from looking down the barrel of a handgun. And once with few bruises. Now I did not do this but all these happened to family members.

 

[50 Freak]

Wisconsin gun deer season is only 9 days long, and it can be considered a cultural event in this state. Many people in this state put up huge sums of cash to buy hunting land, six figure prices for a 40 acre parcel of good hunting land are the norm. When you put up that kind of money and put a lot of work into it along with the anticipation for the 1 week of hunting that you get in this state, you get pretty pissed awfully quick when you find some jackass sitting in your stand ruining a day of hunting for you. I have zero sympathy for Vang when he was confronted, he blatently tresspassed during a week of the year when its really important to know the boundaries.

I don't care if hunting season is one hour out of the year. The life of my daughter and friends mean more to me than bagging some stupid deer.

Vang was trespassing. Yes......

But we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was lost? Were there fences up? Was there a painted line marking someone's property?

Even if he was trespassing. After they confronted him, he was leaving peacefully. Only when one of the guys threatened to physically harm him and blocked his path did things escalate further.

Really put yourself in his situation. Lets say you accidently got lost and started hunting on someone else's land (let's give Vang the benefit of the doubt on this one). 8 people approach you. One with a gun. They sling profanities at you. You try to leave and then they BLOCKED YOUR PATH and threatened physical harm. And according to Vang (shot at him as he was walking away). How many of you would return fire. I sure as hell would.

Frankly, I think the first kill Vang did (against the guy with a rifle) was valid self defense. It's when he ran down the other and shot them was when he passed that line.

If you are smart you beg forgiveness and say I'm sorry over and over as you leave and swear you will never be back. Yes it is in rural areas where people despise tresspassing. But it is also in those areas where people respect others rights more. People in cities do not have the same enjoyment of rights as those in rural areas. Rural people are not used to seeing people walking right outside their front doors. It is so unusual you wonder what is up. It is not normal. By the time the police got there if they would even come the tresspasser would be long gone. Most people do not report tresspassing as it is unnecessary. The tresspassor leaves and the problem is solved. Even the tresspassor if they leave with a few bruises does not report it. As they know they are in the wrong. I know of at least three armed episodes where tresspassors were ran off the farm. Once the police was called as the thugs were held at gun point. Once they left with wide pupils from looking down the barrel of a handgun. And once with few bruises. Now I did not do this but all these happened to family members.

Wow, freaking tough town. Trespassing on someone's front lawn does not give you the right to shoot him down or even lay a hand on him. Nor does it give you the right to hold him prisoner by gunpoint. If this tresspassor was stealing your car or trying to break into your property/ or raping your chickens, then that's a whole different ball of yarn. More power to you then.

But let's get serious here. Your property is your property....true....doesn't mean you can shoot/or threaten to shoot every Tom Dick or Harry that comes on you property uninvited. That's a quick ticket to the big house.

 

[Kim]

Actually it is not in any town. No town around for miles. The guys who got the cops called were high and tried to run down someone with their car. As a matter of fact they did hit the truck and wrecked. Yes they got held by gun point till the police got there 45 minutes later. They started screaming to the police he is pointing a gun at me over and over. Family member said yea and your dope is over there. The police politiely told them the person had every legal right to hold the gun on them. Come to find out they were in a stolen car and one had an arrest warrent out on him. The one who left with bruises was asked to leave nicely when caught hunting one morning. The family member had placed his shotgun aganist a tree and walked over to ask the guy to leave telling him he was tresspassing. He came in by boat. The guy took his shotgun and got in a few good licks(swinging a loaded shot gun) but the family member was younger so he won out. Now my family member was shaken up because he could have been shot or had he not layed his gun down he might have been put in the position of shooting someone which he does not want to do. The third the guy got smart and got a handgun pointed at him. He left quickley. Not everyone lives within a few minutes of the police. And like I said most of the time a tresspassor is up to no good. If they are not it is readily obvious.

 

[cracked butt]

Really put yourself in his situation. Lets say you accidently got lost and started hunting on someone else's land (let's give Vang the benefit of the doubt on this one). 8 people approach you. One with a gun. They sling profanities at you. You try to leave and then they BLOCKED YOUR PATH and threatened physical harm. And according to Vang (shot at him as he was walking away). How many of you would return fire. I sure as hell would.

Frankly, I think the first kill Vang did (against the guy with a rifle) was valid self defense. It's when he ran down the other and shot them was when he passed that line.

Makes sense, but only if you believe Vang's side of the story. I don't. It seems to me that he was trying to eliminate the witnesses. His actions after the event where he ran and hid instead of going right to the police don't exactly add to his credibility either.

 

[50 Freak]

In the end, Vang's going to sit in the slammer for a long time......Loser

The people who confronted Vang...most are dead.....Loser

No one wins on this one. Just shows you that you need to mind your temper and pick your fights carefully. Some things are just not worth it.

 

[Ryder]

How are you supposed to know if a shot is a warning shot? Considering a rifle gets 3" groups at 100 yards that's a funny kind of question. When somebody is trying to kill you there will be no doubt. Ask anyone who's experienced this. Don't take my word for it

As I said I have been on the receiving end of a warning shot but I've also seen them issued. There was no question in my mind these were warning shots even though I was not the one shooting. Nobody was hurt because nobody slowed down. They speed up.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a second warning shot? The warning says to leave or the next shot won't miss. Stop and shoot back? Ok, let us know how it turns out for you.

So the guy in the trial had 4 cartridges in a gun designed to hold 5 but claims he didn't shoot. Why no mention of a search for his brass? Was there one in the chamber? Was it a semiauto, bolt, or a lever gun? Was his safety on or off? Sounds like they don't need to know all the facts to make an informed decision.

 

[El Tejon]

long, police shoot lots of unarmed people. No requirement that the person be armed before shoot in self-defense. Chasing and shooting someone can be self-defense, it just depends, fact sensitive as the tilecrawlers say.

Charles, the prosecution got the case as soon as it happened as soon as the police investigated. Outdoor Life is a media outlet. If true, the alleged events described are truly horrific, however we will see what happens at trial under oath and under cross and what the jury does with that.

I have no evidence that those Vang allegedly shot while running away were running for weapons, however it depends on the objective/subjective outlook of Vang and I have no evidence of that as well. We shall see.

 

[TallPine]

Trespassing on someone's front lawn does not give you the right to shoot him down or even lay a hand on him. Nor does it give you the right to hold him prisoner by gunpoint.

Well, in my case it does, because to get to my "front lawn" you must first trespass at least 1/8 mile onto my property. If you come into my "yard" (the maintained acre or so right around the house) without coming up the drive and knocking, you are dang sure going to be looking down a rifle barrel while I figure out what you are up to. Of course, I have already had someone lurking in the dark trying to sneak up on my daughters, so I am pretty dang touchy about that sort of thing.

I don't really care about folks cutting across the far corners of my land on foot. I myself have arrangements with some of the neighbors to cut across their "back forty" to get to a huge ranch where we have permission to hike whenever we want. Now, ATVs and motorcycles are a different thing - I am not running a motorsports park!

Hunting season is something else... there is no public land (except for a few scattered "state sections" around here) so you have to know exactly where you are at and have permission to hunt. Now if someone wounded an animal and chased it onto my place, that would be fine with me - as long as they had permission to hunt where they originally shot it. Otherwise, I'm going to call the sheriff to come get them. I'm at least going to require a name and address from them so I can verify.

The folks that live out here (with a few notable exceptions) know about this common attitude and act accordingly. Like when the fellow was clearing trees under the powerlines, he first came up the drive and introduced himself instead of just jumping in and starting to cut. Of course, both of us being old woodcutters, he and I couldn't even say "hi" without BS'ing for a couple hours

 

[longeyes]

"long, police shoot lots of unarmed people. No requirement that the person be armed before shoot in self-defense. Chasing and shooting someone can be self-defense, it just depends, fact sensitive as the tilecrawlers say."

I didn't know Vang was a rogue cop. My mistake. You know, E.T., that what you are saying here is scary stuff. Okay to shoot unarmed people in self-defense? Because they were "obstreperous" or had dangerously long fingernails or...? I can't believe you are justifying promiscuous slaughter, whether under the color of law or under the color of rage.

 

[El Tejon]

long, no, I'm not, remember I'm the guy who people get mad at when I always warn about Problem #2 and what happens after you pull the trigger of your CombatBlaster 2000.

Read any newspaper, oh, say the L.A. Times, how many times do you see "furtive gesture" LAPD shootings reported? Every month? Every week perhaps? Plenty.

The standard is the objective/subjective belief of the shooter, not whether any weapon was present. No reason why such an argument cannot be made in the Vang case.

BTW, ahhh, "color of rage" now that's something else entirely!!!

 

[CentralTexas]

Wow-

Times have changed, In Texas we still have "fighting words".
Remember this?- "An armed society is a polite society", how does that factor in here?. I'd like to think this could have been avoided, if a respectful request to leave the private property had been given. Whether this guy was mistaken or not in his trespassing didn't seem to result in the outcome. The outcome seemed to be to be caused by a group of folks calling an armed and unstable man "Gook" etc and scaring him. Seems to be blame on both sides. Personally in cases of a person of a different race/sex being taunted, harrassed or intentionally made fearful by folks of another race, I really have no problem with shooting them. I'm not a sing "Kumbaya" and everyone has value sort of guy. I'll leave that to all the liberal tree huggers on this board.
CT

 

[cracked butt]

So taunting or harassment is an acceptable reason to shoot someone?

I'm wondering if anyone has even read up on this incident.

Vang walked away from the group, crouched down, took the scope off his rifle (better for close range shooting) turned around and open fired.

The only one claiming racial slurs and taunting is the defense. I guess its now ok for some people to kill others over naughty words.

 

[torpid]

Times have changed, In Texas we still have "fighting words".

...Personally in cases of a person of a different race/sex being taunted, harrassed or intentionally made fearful by folks of another race, I really have no problem with shooting them. I'm not a sing "Kumbaya" and everyone has value sort of guy. I'll leave that to all the liberal tree huggers on this board.

Funny, you must be in a different Texas than I remember.
(You know, the "It ain't right to shoot an unarmed woman in the back" Texas.)

 

[cracked butt]

If you were to walk into someone's home by 'accident' (hypothetically) and the homeowner caught you sitting on his recliner eating a sandwich from his refridgerator, wouldn't you expect a few harsh words on the way out of the house if he let you go without calling the police? Would the owner calling you a racial slur while on your way out of the house give you any right or reason to turn around and gun the homeowner down, then go through the house and murder all of the other occupants?

Seems like some people around here have a really screwed up and twisted view of reality.

 

[Flyboy]

Kim:

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

The way it's been explained (repeatedly) to me is that the warning shot isn't illegal in and of itself, but the fact that you shot and didn't shoot for an immediate (physiological) stop is prima facie evidence that you didn't think deadly force was warranted. The theory is that if you thought deadly force was warranted, you wouldn't have messed around putting holes in trees or dirt and giving the other guy more time to do whatever he was doing that threatened you--you'd put a couple in his ten-ring and end the danger. Yes, there are circumstances in which a warning shot might be appropriate--I seem to recall a story of a bar brawl in which somebody fired a warning shot, stopping the fight--but the burden falls to the shooter to demonstrate that it was appropriate.

The lawyer who taught my concealed carry class was very clear on this point: "if you touch your gun, somebody has to die." He wasn't being flip about the situation, he was trying to make clear the legal issues surrounding the use of deadly force. In most jurisdictions, merely drawing constitutes the use of deadly force. That means that you've employed deadly force whether you kill, wound, miss, or don't even fire. They're all the same in the eyes of the law: deadly force. Also in most jurisdictions, you're generally only justified in using deadly force in the face of an imminent danger to your life or person (the "grievous bodily harm" standard). (Yes, Texans, I know, and God bless ya!) That being the case, you don't introduce a gun into the equation until you're facing that clear and present danger--drawing before that point means that you are the one employing lethal force first, and that's a no-no.

In this case, the victim with the gun had it for other legitimate reasons, so merely having it out doesn't necessarily equate to using lethal force. If he'd fired a warning shot, though, it would have either been A) before Vang threatened the group, and therefore verboten, or B) after Vang made a deadly threat, so he should have been shooting warshots rather than warnings.

See where the problem is now? It's not the warning shot, it's what that shot implies.

 

[Titus]

If you were to walk into someone's home by 'accident' (hypothetically) and the homeowner caught you sitting on his recliner eating a sandwich from his refridgerator, wouldn't you expect a few harsh words on the way out of the house if he let you go without calling the police? Would the owner calling you a racial slur while on your way out of the house give you any right or reason to turn around and gun the homeowner down, then go through the house and murder all of the other occupants?

Seems like some people around here have a really screwed up and twisted view of reality.

Well, here's some reality... They were "from around here", and handled it your way, and now they're mostly dead. But they were right! Is someone letting themselves into a house and making a sandwich the same as someone getting lost in the woods and ending up on someone else's property? If the guy apologizes and tries to leave when you tell him to leave or you'll kick his ass, it is possible to just let him leave, even if it's in the middle of your "cultural event".

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The lawyer who taught my concealed carry class was very clear on this point: "if you touch your gun, somebody has to die."

I think that is total bull crap.

If I have to draw my weapon, and the threat runs away upon seeing my weapon, I would not shoot.

I think that trying to imply that you must shoot if you draw your weapon will result in people shooting more often than is really necessary.

 

[Titus]

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

Also, you're responsible for your bullets and where they end up. A couple of possibilites... You shoot near the guy, but to his left, and he happens to break left right as you let the shot off. He bleeds to death. "Oops, I didn't mean to..." Or, bullet whizzes on by, and clips someone coming around a corner at the wrong moment. "Oops, sorry about that..."

 

[Ryder]

The lawyer who taught my concealed carry class was very clear on this point: "if you touch your gun, somebody has to die."

I think that trying to imply that you must shoot if you draw your weapon will result in people shooting more often than is really necessary.

My state teaches the same thing in CCW classes. A lot of people didn't want shall issue. My personal theory is that they hope to achieve a high percentage of dead bodies to make concealed carry illegal again. Why else promote unecessary killings?

But I am ok with that since I consider my presentation fast enough that I don't need to arm myself before the decision to fire is made..

 

[cracked butt]

Well, here's some reality... They were "from around here", and handled it your way, and now they're mostly dead. But they were right! Is someone letting themselves into a house and making a sandwich the same as someone getting lost in the woods and ending up on someone else's property? If the guy apologizes and tries to leave when you tell him to leave or you'll kick his ass, it is possible to just let him leave, even if it's in the middle of your "cultural event".

Now your just making things up. The idea of a warning shot or threats are what people here are injecting into the case, there is no evidence of such.
If you think its all right to shoot people because someone's feelings are hurt, I'm done talking with you.

 

[50 Freak]

If you were to walk into someone's home by 'accident' (hypothetically) and the homeowner caught you sitting on his recliner eating a sandwich from his refridgerator, wouldn't you expect a few harsh words on the way out of the house if he let you go without calling the police? Would the owner calling you a racial slur while on your way out of the house give you any right or reason to turn around and gun the homeowner down, then go through the house and murder all of the other occupants?

Totally different. Your comparing apples with oranges. Given your scenario, yes, you'd be in the right to even pump lead into the intruder. Granted you'd have a hell of time explaining to a jury you killed a guy because he ate your sandwich. But i'ts easier to get away with this as he is in your home. And you are trapped. Not so out in the open country.

For a scenario more appropriate to this incident. You come home and some guy is sitting on your front lawn. NO you would not be in the legal right to verbally assault this guy. And you definitely would not be legal right to prevent him from leaving. This is what happened. As confirmed by both parties.

Now the story differs on this. If Vang's testimony is true about the land owner firing a "warning shot". Then the first kill, was a valid self defense. That valid self defense claim was lost when Vang rang down his victims and shot them in the back.