Hmong/Deer hunter shootings

[Titus]

For those who are still making assumptions on or are thinking of alternate scenarios, please go read the official police report that was in my last post.

Okay, so Willers fired first and Vang kept firing when more people with guns showed up?

Of course the jury was handpicked from Dane county- the also known as San Francisco East, so anything can happen

And if they convict him, will that make them as smart as you then?

 

[Titus]

The prosecuter's and victims' testimony also point to the fact that the only shot fired from Willer's gun was fired by Hesebeck after willers was wounded- thus 4 shells being left in a gun that could hold 5.

I imagine the prosecutor's testimony would... But Hesebeck told his wife at the time that Willers shot at Vang. Then, on the stand, he remembers he shot at Vang later. Which Hesebeck do I believe?

 

[cracked butt]

Okay, so Willers fired first

That's only if you believe Vang, you know they guy who did all of the murdering on that day?

nd Vang kept firing when more people with guns showed up?

More people, but without guns.

 

[cracked butt]

But Hesebeck told his wife at the time that Willers shot at Vang. Then, on the stand, he remembers he shot at Vang later. Which Hesebeck do I believe?

link for this one?

 

[MechAg94]

So, an armed man trespassing on hunting land killed several people who confronted him. :banghead:

That is NOT self defense. That is MURDER. I think too many of you are getting lost in the details. Just because those people didn't behave perfectly, y'all want to say murder was justified. That's bull.

Lesson: If you are trespassing, self defense should not be considered an option. The burden of proof should be extremely high to claim that.

 

[longeyes]

"The Hmong religion (Animism) and culture are more similar to American Indians than to other Asian cultures. They have no written language. They are often victimized by other Asian cultures and are well known for their courage."

Vang didn't prove himself courageous, just murderously out of control. One hopes they can make the leap from the cultural predicate you describe here to something more likely to mesh with American society in a productive way.

The more facts and testimony are adduced in this thread the more clear it is, to me anyway, that Vang is guilty of murder, no ifs, ands, or buts. I'm really not sure why on this board his behavior is finding so many apologists. Vang is not Hawkeye, Jeremiah Johnson, or even an embattled gun-owner. He's a guy who has a lot of rage, doesn't respect American laws, and, unfortunately, was armed and dangerous. Given his previous record it was only a matter of time before something like this occurred.

 

[pax]

That's only if you believe Vang, you know they guy who did all of the murdering on that day?

Cracked butt, the reason they're having a trial at all is to determine whether Vang did, in fact, do all the murdering on that day.

I agree he's probably guilty as sin, and if so, I think it's a shame there's no death penalty in WI. But I hate to see such bad logic!

Heh:

1) Vang is guilty of murder.
2) Vang's defense is his claim that he was shot at.
3) Murderers lie.
4) Therefore, Vang is guilty of murder.

See the problem with the logic?

pax

I have never met a steadily logical person. -- Martha Gellhorn

 

[longeyes]

Vang, romanticized

I'm waiting breathlessly for the animist defense.

If that one doesn't work try the Viet Nam PTSD defense.

Cultural friction, poverty, and alcoholism comprise a good backup defense.

 

[cracked butt]

Actually Pax, I'm glad we have a system where he is allowed a trial or he would have been hung a long time ago. However, he is going away for a very long time, whether apologists on this site see things his way or not.

2) 2) Vang's defense is his claim that he was shot at.
3) Murderers lie.
4) Therefore, Vang is guilty of murder

Vang's biggest mistake was that he didn't finish eliminating all of the witnesses, he probably could have gotten away with what he did if there weren't two survivors that dispute his claims. I'm sure there are people here that would enjoy that, with the 'rednecks' getting what was coming to them and all. :banghead:

 

[one-shot-one]

this morning on 740am radio

they had a sound bite from the trail.
didn't hear the question but from Vang's own mouth:
"He rode up quickly on the atv and as he got off his rifle fell and landed about 4' behind him, he reached for his rifle and i shot twice."
now don't flame me because i do not know what this was an answer to or how it may have been edited by the station or affillatte.

 

[longeyes]

Moral: Be armed. And, for God sake, get a good sling.

For a guy with no written language this Vang really can't stop talking, can he? Either he's naive or he wants to go away.

 

[buzz_knox]

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

This might have been explained but here goes. When you fire a warning shot, the same rules apply as shooting in defense because discharging that weapon is still use of deadly force. If self-defense isn't justified, you're looking at attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon.

Remember that the "warning shot" is a bullet heading in some direction other than the target you are onstensibly authorized by law to shoot. Since your attention will be focused on the bad guy, you really don't know where the round is going. That's the perfect situation for hitting an innocent person.

If you have to pull the trigger, shoot to stop. Warning shots are for movies.

 

[Titus]

More people, but without guns.

On the last page, Vang states Laski and Jessica Willers came up on an ATV and that Laski had a rifle in hand.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ct/20050914/cr_ct/shootingvictimishotathunterafterheopenedfireonus

He recalled his last words to his father and Jessica Willers, after a frantic Robert Crotteau radioed to the cabin for them to "bring the f---ing guns down here."

 

[Titus]

link for this one?

Here's a couple at random...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509140172sep14,1,1654451.story

Kohn also had Hesebeck read from notes his wife had taken about his recollections as they sat together at a hospital hours after the shooting. In those notes, it said he believed Willers had "returned fire." But Hesebeck said he no longer believes that to be true.

and
http://www.haywardwi.com/record/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=208412

Hesebeck had grabbed Willers’ rifle and fired a shot in Vang’s general direction. Vang then left the scene.

Hesebeck said “It was very hard for me to point a gun at another human being,” but he pulled the trigger.

 

[Titus]

For a guy with no written language this Vang really can't stop talking, can he?

That might follow...

Either he's naive or he wants to go away.

Speaking of language, who will give me odds on this one appearing in a Massad Ayoob column?

http://www.kaaltv.com/article/view/91523/

Vang was cross-examined by Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, who asked if each victim deserved to die. Vang answered "no" in some cases and "yes" in others. He repeated his explanation for his actions, saying he did it to defend himself.

 

[cracked butt]

In those notes, it said he believed Willers had "returned fire."

Ok, returning fire is a lot different than firing first.

 

[chaim]

I haven't read all six pages (man this thread took off) but I've read most of it. I apologize if this point has already been made.

For all the "self defense" people in regards to this case:

This guy was trespassing on someone else's property! He was breaking several laws (trespassing and poaching). How can anything he does in connection to this be self defense. If it is self defense for him to shoot these people (several after chasing them down and shooting them in the back) then I can break into your house obviously armed and if you level a gun at me I can shoot you in your own house and it is self defense.

He was uninvited and illegally on someone else's property. The property owner gave his friends permission to act as his agent, and detaining a person breaking the law on your property is legal in most states (at minimum as a "citizens arrest"). Then the owner himself showed up. The BG was armed with an SKS. Even if Willard had his gun trained on the criminal this should be legal and to shoot is not self defense (if I break into your house is it self defense if I shoot you when you try to hold me at gunpoint while waiting for the police?).

The victims say the criminal walked a ways away, took out his rifle, took off the scope, then fired at them. The criminal says he was shot at, then he took the time to take off his scope before firing back. Hmm, who to believe. You shoot at me and I want to return fire as quickly as possible, I'm not taking the time to remove anything, but then I guess that is just me. Then to add to that, it was self defense because he was shot at first but then he started chasing people and shooting people in the back , even by the criminal's own account he is an evil murderer.

One last time, he was committing a crime on someone else's property. He was there uninvited. Should the owner shoot him for it, no. Is it ok to train a gun on an armed intruder however, of course! Who here would do differently? Also remember, by the victims' testimony they only trained a rifle on the criminal after the criminal got into firing stance and readied his rifle (I'd have probably had a gun on him from the first since he was armed). Might he have been scared, sure. Is that justification to shoot the landowner and his friends, heck no!

 

[buzz_knox]

This guy was trespassing on someone else's property! He was breaking several laws (trespassing and poaching). How can anything he does in connection to this be self defense. If it is self defense for him to shoot these people (several after chasing them down and shooting them in the back) then I can break into your house obviously armed and if you level a gun at me I can shoot you in your own house and it is self defense.

Except that he apparently was leaving after being told to. He was starting to leave when the owner arrived and his "posse" reinitiated the confrontation. If you start a fight (which is illegal), you still have the right to defend yourself if your "victim" escalates the fight by pulling a deadly weapon. He lost any claim to self-defense (assuming it was valid to begin with) when he chased down his opponents rather than leaving the area.

The house situation is a wholly separate scenario and has no relevance here.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Everybody commenting really needs to take a second and read the police report containing Vang's own testimony that is in the PDF file that cracked_butt posted as well as his trial testimony.

By Vang's own admission:
1) He shot a teenage girl he knew to be unarmed
2) Vang himself confirms he uttered the "You still aren't dead yet" and shot at an unarmed, wounded man
3) Vang mentions not shooting at one ATV because the men were armed
4) Vang claims that Williers was carrying his gun at port arms when approaching as he was walking away and that at a distance of about 100' he became concerned Williers was going to fire and dropped into a crouch. At this point Vang claims Williers fired. In response, Vang removed the scope from his rifle and then fired two shots back dropping Williers. He also at this point began shooting at the others who he acknowledged were fleeing. He also acknowledges reloading and continuing to shoot. Finally he acknowledges chasing Robert and Joey Crouteau a considerable distance because they had been abusive to him and "deserved to die"

 

[svtruth]

Two little items

If he was such a good shot, his "following a wounded deer" claim seems suspect.
It seems likely that his past history would reflect a previous episode of violence.

 

[Titus]

If you start a fight (which is illegal), you still have the right to defend yourself if your "victim" escalates the fight by pulling a deadly weapon.

This made me think of something I read years ago. Back when I got my first carry permit back in PA, I went to the library and copied a number of items regarding the laws on use of force, including the "General Principles of Justification". I just pulled them out of a box, and found the example this reminded me of. "Where defendant and his companions were clearly the aggressors in the incident in which the victim charged them and attempted to pull a knife, but was shot by one of the defendant's companions, no valid claim of self-defense could be asserted by defendant. Com. v. Townes, 334 A.2d 599, 460 Pa. 709, 1975"

Now let's say you're Willers and you got your shot off in time, and killed Vang. You claim self-defense. Now you're on trial. The prosecutor puts it like this: Vang apologized, asked for directions off your property and was leaving when you and your friends surrounded him and kept him from leaving, for the purpose of letting him know how you were going to kick his ass. You were standing there with a rifle. Now you claim Vang made a move so you had to shoot and kill him. The prosecutor might ask, would a person who was surrounded by multiple belligerents, one of whom had a high-powered rifle, really make a move like you say?

Knowing that the jury could convict you of lesser crimes also, would you sweat the verdict just a little?

 

[El Tejon]

Seems the jury did not believe it was self-defense.

 

[MechAg94]

You people are acting like this was out on the street. It wasn't. He was armed and trespassing. He shot and killed several people who attempted to detain him then let him go. Many of those he shot were unarmed. At least one was wounded and incapable of causing him harm. Any other details are irrelevant in determining self defense. I don't care if that hunter shot at him, it does not excuse what he did. If you use your gun to defend yourself against an attacker, you don't have the right to start shooting innocent bystanders just because they were standing near him. If this went down on a city street he would still be guilty of murder.

1. If you bring a gun to a fight, there no such thing as escalation.
2. If you trespass then get into a gun fight, you are not acting in self defense.
3. Trespassing onto someone's land is NOT the same thing walking onto someone's front yard, despite what some of you city boys seem to think. There are no sidewalks or mountain bike paths through the woods.
4. The analogy of walking into someone's home is most certainly relevant and accurate.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

One other point the police report mentions is that Vang did not idly wander from public land to private land like he just accidentally stepped over a boundary.

The private land in question was in the middle of 400 acres of private land.

 

[sumpnz]

Vang found guilty on all 6 counts of 1st deg murder, and 3 counts of attempted murder. Fox news story.

Can't say I disagree in any way with the jurors. I suppose I might have been able to be swayed on vote not-guilty on one of two of the murder and one attempted murder charge but not the rest. Anyway, I wasn't in the courtroom and the jury has spoken.