Hmong/Deer hunter shootings

[Lobotomy Boy]

We can now call Vang a mass murderer rather than an accused mass murderer. The jury convicted him, and rightly so. He will never breath another breath as a free man and we are all better off for it.

But there's a lesson here for all of us. Vang is guilty of murder and will live for many years in prison. Eight Wisconsonians are guilty of terrible judgment, and even though that's not a crime, six of them have paid a far higher price than Vang ever will. They may have been within their rights and Vang was an a-hole who was breaking the law and trespassing on their land, but the a-hole turned out to be a psychopath. Now he is a live a-hole and they are dead land owners. The lesson is that it might be a good idea to be polite and treat people with respect, even when they are people of another race who are clearly engaging in illegal or immoral activity. Being right doesn't make being dead any more appealing.

 

[Kjervin]

So vang goes to jail for the rest of his life and a bunch of people are still dead. I think justice was done in the courtroom, but I still think Vang is better off then if he let them go "Deliverance" on him. At the end of the day, the victims died because they thought they were in a position of power, and therefore could treat someone however they wanted. I guess I feel that although Vang went way too far, I have some sympathy with him because I view the use of racial slurs as a sign that the person making the slur does not see the sluree as a full person, and having dehumanized them (in their eyes) they would be more likely to hurt, maim, injure, kill or otherwise cause them harm. I would never trust my life to the good graces of someone who had previously called me a "Mudd Duck" or as I am not Hmong, any of the many ethnic slurs for my people. It really doesn't matter whether you guys think that calling people slurs is a dismissable thing, to me, using slurs directed at the person you are confronting, is proof of your increased likelyhood to do them harm, as by dehumanizing them, you are decreasing your natural reluctance to kill another person. So if you take nothing away from this, please give thought to this fact:

If you use ethnic slurs in a potentially life or death situation, the other person will likely a)percieve you to be a greater threat then you may actually be and actirrationally and b) be less likely to show you any mercy should you fall under their power.

But hey, talk all the junk you want to your tresspassers and rough them up a bit. Tell yourselves that they deserve it because they are tresspassers. Remember, that once you stop treating people with respect and dehumanizing them, you'd better keep your guard up, cause most likely they'll have stoped seeing you as part of the human race as well. I bet the victims died wondering how someone could do that to them, another human being. I bet a lot of you wonder what kind of monster Vang would have to be to do that to another human being and that is where your anger comes from. That could've been your daughter lying in a pool of her own blood. I get it. Life is about choices. They grabbed a tiger by the tail. They thought they could hold on. They couldn't. They got bit. Their friends got bit. Their loved ones got bit. I don't think it a lot of comfort to the families of the victims that Vang will go to jail for life. I bet they would rather have their loved ones back. You never know when you'll run into a crazy person, and you can't control the actions of others, but you can control your own. So, as for me, I don't:
1)throw eggs at cars
2)use ethnic slurs
3)cut people off in traffic
4)rough up tresspassers
5)teachpeople lessons
6)point guns at people I don't intend to shoot
7)try to piss off people with guns of their own
8)try to piss off people even with no aparent guns (concealed means concealed)

and hopefully I will never be in the position of improving my land with my own blood. Remember, being right does not make you bulletproof.

Kj

 

[1911 guy]

I strongly dissagree

Kjervin, you are missing the point. I really don't care what color, religion, nationality, etc. you are. Your individual actions are what concern me. Am I going to call you names based on whatever minority group you may or may not be part of? No, but there are some out there who will. Are you justified in killing them because their words make you uncomfortable? That is the basis of your argument, that they had it coming, they should have known better than to say bad things to a poor minority. Sure, they would have been better off to keep things as civil as possible, but being an apologist for a man who murdered six people because they hurt his feelings does not strike me as being a completely sound position.

 

[cracked butt]

I love it when people try to push political correctness by condoning violence of others


Here's a question that needs to be asked to all of those who think its ok to shoot over a racial slur: Shouldn't Vang have also been tried for a hate crime?

Here's another type of behavior I'm sure you'll want to defend: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug05/351376.asp

Mean mugging' led to shootings, police say
3 were killed after threatening stare, complaint says
By JOHN DIEDRICH
[email protected]
Posted: Aug. 26, 2005

A threatening stare, known as "mean mugging," set off a conflict last weekend that ended with three men shot to death in a south side Milwaukee bar, according to a criminal complaint.


Christopher A. "German" Smith, 37, of the 2400 block of S. 12th St. in Milwaukee, was charged by warrant Friday with three counts of first-degree intentional homicide.

He is being sought by police. If convicted, he faces up to life in prison.

He is charged in the deaths of Daniel Vela, 32, and Roberto Vela Jr., 31, who were cousins, and their friend Armando Pena, 19, at the Wolfgang Pub, 3164 S. 13th St.

Eighty-nine people have been killed in the city this year, more than all of last year.

Police have said the most common cause has been fights and arguments, such as the one that ended in this triple homicide.

According to the complaint:

Smith and his roommate, Guadalupe Santos, went to Wolfgang's the night of Aug. 19 with female friends.

A short time after they arrived, a Hispanic male began "mean mugging" their group.

"Mean mugging" has been described by police veterans as a provocative or threatening look.

If it is returned, it often sets off a fight or even a homicide, police said.

After the stare, the conflict seemed to be resolved when Santos and the Hispanic man went to the bar and had a drink.

But it wasn't over.

Smith told one of the women in his group to go to his house and get "the first thing" from his top drawer, "put it together and bring it back."

She went to Smith's house and took a gun from the drawer, assembled it and left with it under her shirt, to hide it from Smith's 12-year-old son, who was watching television. She returned to Wolfgang's and told Smith the gun was under a car seat.

Shortly before the shooting, a witness saw Smith doing shots of alcohol with Daniel Vela and Pena, one of whom had apparently done the "mean mugging."

A little while later, the witness heard a fight in the men's restroom followed by shots.

Daniel and Roberto Vela were shot to death inside the men's room at the bar, dying from multiple gunshot wounds.

Smith chased Pena outside, saying, "You're next," a witness told police, and later told another witness he had shot Pena "right between the eyes."

Smith later said he dropped the gun while in the restroom and one of the victims went for it.

Then he shot the men, a witness said Smith recalled.

The day after the killings, Daniel Vela's sister-in-law had said he had told her the night before that he owed some people $10,000, and that he was going to meet them to say he didn't have the money.

But the criminal complaint against Smith makes no mention of any debt nor does it indicate that Smith knew the victims.

 

[cracked butt]

BTW, in the previous article I posted, the killer was white and the victims were black and hispanic. Knock yourselves out making apologies for this piece of trash as well.

What? No takers?

 

[Kjervin]

It's not about hurting feelings. The person who uses a slur is more likely to mean you harm then the man who does not. I am not an apologist for Vang. I point out that the whole reason to use Racial slurs is to put down or intimidate. In either case, you communicate that you mean the other person harm, or at the least that you are not sympathetic to them. If the other person is trying to figure out how much of a threat you are to them, or how likely you are to carry through on your previous threats, what kind of effect do you think it would have? And by the way, it doesn't matter so much if you really are racist, but how racist the other person thinks you are. Because, if they have a weapon too, the likelyhood that they would use it is dependant on how likely they think you are to use yours. So, if you project yourself to be a greater threat then you are, you also increase the likelyhood the other person will try to shoot you first. Some things are subtle. I am not saying that the victims deserved it, I am saying their choices contributed to their situation, even accepting that Vang was a murderous trespasser. You cannot always be sure that the person in front of you is not an unbalanced maniac. You can choose, however, how you relate to them. That is my point, maybe you missed it.

Kj

 

[cracked butt]

I point out that the whole reason to use Racial slurs is to put down or intimidate. In either case, you communicate that you mean the other person harm, or at the least that you are not sympathetic to them.

Same with 'mean mugging'

 

[Bigfoot]

Who said the assumed racial slurs were spoken? Oh yeah, THIS guy. Your taking HIS word and running with it?

Much of the case as presented hinged on how credible jurors found Terry Willers, who first discovered Vang in the tree stand, and who denied he ever shot at Vang later.

As the courthouse cleared, Sawyer County Sheriff's Investigator Gary Gillis said he never doubted Willers and that the quiet construction worker had never varied his story during different interviews. Vang, however, changed his story at least three times, Gillis said, at first accusing Willers of shooting his own friends.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/sep05/356333.asp

Hey, you guys want to blame the backshot victims, ok by me. After all, the PC times that we live in means that the innocent is to blame and the the guilty isn't. I just hope that your not on jury duty if something horrible happens on my property.

This thread reminds me that OJ say's he's still looking for the real murderer. Looks to me like he's got a few believers here.

 

[Kjervin]

Cracked Butt,
I hope you don't think that I am trying to push political correctness upon you. As to your drug up story, I really don't get how it relates to what I am talking about, so I will just make one more attempt to try and explain my position, and if you still don't get it, or don't agree, well, life goes on.

1) when anyone is faced with a situation in which threats might exist, a prudent person tries to assess how great a threat they are really faced with and make a determination as to what the best course of action would be. Unfortunately, everyone does not make decisions the same way neither does everyone have perfect information about the other people involved in the situation with them.

2)Some people are decent, caring people and other are a "piece of trash" or put another way, some people are a real threat, and others are only a threat when provoked.

3)In abscence of perfect information as to the nature of the persons you are confronted with, you have to use the information at hand.

4)the victims seemed to have come to the conclusion that they could intimidate Vang and have no consequence.(it seems to me at least that they had in mind confronting the tresspasser, cussing him out, and sending him home with his tail between his legs; I'm not sure there is any evidence that they meant anything more dasterdly, but I guess they might have).

5)Whatever their intention, they either a)pushed his buttons or b)scared him enough that he made the choice to shoot them

6) Either way, there was a point when this situation could have turned out differently, and I suggest it was a)they should have let him go when he first wanted to go or b)they shouldn't have tried to intimidate an ARMED man (really not sure why that seems to be so counterintuitive). They chose the other fork in the road, and suffered.

7)so what lesson can we learn? a)Stay away from murderous people? How, pray tell can we do that? how do we identify them before it is too late? b)if confronting an ARMED man, be armed yourself and bring overwhelming force? Actually, I think that's not a bad lesson, and if you have several armed men availiable, very prudent c)don't confront the ARMED man at all? I'll buy that idea d)not threaten an ARMED man an denigrate him with ethnic slurs? seems like common sense to me.

Should he have killed those people? Definately not. While you take such pleasure in Vang being sentenced to life and wish he could've gotten death, I think it a pity that anyone had to die. But neither side could be gracious to the other when they had the upper hand. They hand tempers and guns when they really couldn't afford to have both.

I would never shoot a person solely for calling me a name, any name. It would however keep me from giving them the benefit of the doubt if it meant I would have to rely on their good graces to survive. Understand, I don't begrude even the most vile racists the right to live or even to speak their minds, but I would not put my life in their hands if I had a choice. So, Cracked Butt, when you are next throwing around ethnic slurs in the middle of the woods, even if it is on your property, you would do well to DISARM your prey first!

Kj

 

[Kjervin]

One more thing:

I am not saying the victims are wrong or that they deserved to die, sometimes people get a death that they do not deserve, yet might have been avoided.

KJ

 

[Byron Quick]

I've seen people trespassing on family land. People that I didn't know and that I knew did not have permission to be there. My great aunt informed the family of anyone who received permission. I had two reactions. If I were alone then I followed and observed their activities while remaining concealed. If others were with me, then I would approach the trespasser while my companions covered me from concealment. I'm not saying that my companions were aiming at the trespasser, folks. I am saying that they were ready to respond immediately to aggression by the trespasser.

I was polite, calm, and civil. I informed the trespasser that he was on posted, private land and asked him to leave. I informed him that law enforcement would be called if he was found trespassing again.

I didn't threaten violence but I was prepared for violence.

The running away thingie? In accordance with Georgia law, if you're in my house you're a perforated critter as soon as I get a sight picture. The statute does not require that you be armed nor does it require that you be shot in the front or allowed to run away. Basically states that if a person has forcibly entered a residence where he doesn't reside, then lethal force is lawful.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I still think Vang is better off then if he let them go "Deliverance" on him.

Vang represents the worst that the Hmong community has to offer, and the hunters represent the worst that Wisconsin has to offer. And as obnoxious as that can be, at worst these people were a-holes, a group of blowhards impressing each other with their bravado. While that makes them obnoxious, it doesn't make them particularly dangerous. To compare them to the murdering rapists in the film "Deliverance" indicates you have absolutely no comprehension of the nature of rural people in north central United States. To the best of my knowledge, no group of hunters in Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Wyoming, or Montana has ever gone "Deliverance" on any person of any race or creed. Sure, we may be racist blowhards at times, but to say that there was a chance these people were going to harm Vang displays absolutely no understanding of this culture.

These guys were a-holes to Vang--that has been made clear in the trial--but there is a huge difference between an a-hole windbag and a murderous psychopath. Near as I can tell being an a-hole is not a capital offense. In the United States we have the Constitutional right to be a-holes. It's not a good idea to be an a-hole, because as this situation shows a murderous psychopath can trump at least 8 a-holes any day, but being an a-hole does not in any way condone murder. To even consider that it does indicates a psychotic break from reality on your part.

I don't mean to attack you personally, kjervin (even though you have personally insulted me with your "Deliverance" reference), but at the very least your argument indicates you have seen too many movies and have not had nearly enough life experience. That's a best case scenario. If you really believe the behavior of the victims condoned murder, then you genuinely need to seek psychological help. I'm not trying to insult you; I mean that respectfully. If you believe what you have written, then you represent a danger to yourself and those around you.

 

[TallPine]

The lesson is that it might be a good idea to be polite and treat people with respect, even when they are people of another race who are clearly engaging in illegal or immoral activity.

Actually, I think the lesson is to be well armed and prepared to defend yourself when confronting trespassers.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Actually, I think the lesson is to be well armed and prepared to defend yourself when confronting trespassers.

You can practice your method, but the only place that will get you is a lifetime jail cell next to Chai Vang. That's the exact kind of blustery bravado that led to this tragic situation in the first place. Good luck with that.

 

[TallPine]

Well, you do thing your way and I'll do it mine ... I sure as heck am not going to give up my land to every piece of crap that that think they can just tromp all over me. It's posted and you dang well better get off when I tell you, or else sit down and wait for the sheriff.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

As I've said, you have the Constitutional right to be the biggest a-hole in the universe, but <if> you start waving your gun at trespassers and acting like Mr. Big Pants, you might just find the sheriff gives the trespasser a written warning and hauls you <> off to the pokey. Then you'll be <> without the constitutional right to own guns, to hunt, or to carry a concealed hand gun because you are now <a> convicted felon.

Or you could end up dead or wounded like those in Wisconsin.

But as I've said, you have the Constitutional right to behave as irresponsibly as you want, right up until you start threatening trespassers with your weapon. I don't know what they taught you in your concealed-carry class, if you took one, but in the class I took I was taught that if a person starts waving his gun at another human being in the abscence of immediate life-threatening danger, that would constitute the felonious use of deadly force. At that point you will have overstepped your Constitutional right to be the biggest <fool> in the universe and you will rightly spend some time in prison.

I hope you never find yourself in a position where <an> utter lack of good judgment will lead to a tragedy like the one in Wisconsin, but if you do, I hope you don't mind <doing time>.

In the meantime, you might want to look into taking a concealed-carry course, or if you've already taken one, perhaps take a refresher course.

(Art sez, sometimes I get tired of having to clean up the trash.)

 

[idakfan]

*****
The lesson of this story is definately don't talk sh*t to anybody with a weapon and then turn your back on them.
*****

 

[TallPine]

Lobotomy: I don't know what the heck gave you the idea that I would go just "waving a gun" at a trespasser for no reason. And CCW doesn't have a thing to do with it.

OTOH, I'm not going to just sit in my house with my head under the covers. This is my land, and I have the right to tell anyone I want to get off of it. And I sure as heck am not going to do that without being adequately armed for the situation (meaning equally or better armed than the trespasser) - which is exactly what I said previously. Sort of a "speak softly [at first, anyway] and carry a big stick" approach.

It would all depend on the situation, and if you read some of my previous posts on this thread you would not be calling me names.

 

[torpid]

Cover, a bullhorn, an armed buddy, and a cellphone (or equivalent).

"Argh, I'm late... honey, have you seen my hunting bullhorn?"


.

 

[gc70]

kjervin has a point of view. Some folks undoubtedly get nervous when confronted by blustering loudmouths. But that's only one point of view.

I am cautious with, but not frightened by, blustering loudmouths because they are just blowing hot air most of the time. Yes, sometimes loudmouths get carried away with their own rhetoric and have an inspriational brainfart to act out what they are saying, but that isn't terribly common.

On the other hand, I am very careful and respectful of calm, confident people who confront me. In the woods, those cool characters have probably already made a cold calculation to kill you, if necessary, if you twitch the wrong way.

 

[Biker]

No offense meant Lobotomy Boy, but "Mr. Big Pants" has to be the most pitiful insult I've heard since Christ was a Corporal...
Biker

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

And CCW doesn't have a thing to do with it.

The majority of a CCW course involves when to use lethal force and when not to use it.

And I am not telling you to let people hunt on your property without permission, but when you write things like:

I sure as heck am not going to give up my land to every piece of crap that that think they can just tromp all over me. It's posted and you dang well better get off when I tell you, or else sit down and wait for the sheriff...

then it seems to me that you are advocating an illegal use of lethal force. You did say "you dang well better leave," which is the proper response, but regarding the rest of that sentence, how do you intend to make the person "sit down and wait for the sheriff"? Given that the person is hunting, he or she will be armed. If the person tries to leave and you use physical force to prevent him or her from leaving, you will be guilty of kidnapping or false imprisonment. If you use your weapon to prevent the person from leaving, you will be guilty of threatening someone with a deadly weapon or attempted murder. Either way you will be in more trouble than the trespasser.

I realize that you would do the sensible thing and let the person leave. I apologize for using you as a bad example, since you do indicate that your first response would be to prevent the situation from escalating. I just took a part of your post that you probably didn't mean as it sounded and focused on that. My goal wasn't to pick on you. My goal was to try to get us all to use our heads instead of walking into a protentially deadly situation and thinking with our swinging man tackle. We've all done it, and this is an example of why we should stop.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

No offense meant Lobotomy Boy, but "Mr. Big Pants" has to be the most pitiful insult I've heard since Christ was a Corporal...

I know, but I really didn't want to insult the poster so I tried to keep it soft. I was trying to make a point about a bigger issue. No one in their right mind can make apologies for Vang--the man was truly insane--but I think we can all learn a lesson in dealing with potentially dangerous situations from what happened. Basically, don't do it the way the 'Sconny deer hunters did it.

Since you probably ride a motorcycle given your name, here's a good analogy. What do you do when some guy in a SUV starts to move into your lane while you're riding your bike? Do you hold your ground because you have the right of way or do you get the hell out of the SUV's way as fast as you can? Personally I don't argue with cars and SUVs when I'm out riding my motorcycle, regardless of how wrong they might be. When a motorcycle and a four-wheeled vehicle get into an altercation, the motorcycle always loses, no matter who had the right-of-way. Being right doesn't make you any less dead.

 

[TallPine]

how do you intend to make the person "sit down and wait for the sheriff"?

Well, as I had mentioned before... we have already had an instance of someone prowling around our buildings in the dark apparently stalking my children. One of the dogs scared him off. (that's a whole other story that was discussed at length in S&T) Now if I ever catch somebody like that they are definitely not running away

I haven't yet had any trouble with hunters. Actually, all of the trouble has been with this one neighbor who is supposed to be in prison right now (and his guests, some of whom are RSOs), except for some people who were "stealing" firewood - in that case the former owner hadn't told them that she no longer owned the land. He apologized and so I told him to go ahead and load up what he had already cut, but I could have made him unload his pickup, too

OTOH, you don't know what kind of trespassing person you might be dealing with, so IMO it is wise to be well armed and prepared. If I am at the point of telling someone to leave, it is no longer a "polite encounter" in any event.

 

[Kjervin]

Lobotomy Boy,
I am not saying you are like the people in "Deliverence", but I am sure you already knew that. I also never said Vang was justified in what he did. In fact, I said the oposite. However, even though you might think the victims were just harmless blowhards, the problem with being a harmless blowhard is that people might take you at face value. It kind of reminds me of how when people choose to dress counterculture in some way, then seem outraged when they are hassled by authority figures. Even though they should be able to express themselves without being hassled, in reality it comes with the territory. You seem to want to recast my point of view as being somehow exculpatory of Vang, or condemnatory or the victims, when in fact I am not speakingto issues of guilt and innocence at all. it's really simple. People make choices. Choices have consequences. As a result of the involved parties choices, we have the results we have today. If either side made better choices we would have had a better outcome. If both sides made better choices, we likely would have had no tradegy at all. Note this is not about who is to blame, because the person to blame for the deaths is clearly the person who killed them. I may have a different point of view then you do, and while you feel that racists are harmless, but I suspect a bunch of minorities do not agree with you. I do not have any animis towards the victims. I think they got a bum deal. But life is as it is, and when you escalate a situation, sometimes you lose.

So here's something to think about: you have the right to be whatever kind of racist blowhard you choose, and the victim exercised that right, and it got them dead. Tell me how they wouldn't be better off showing some restraint and being alive instead. Not guilt. Not blame. Just better off alive.

KJ


Kj