Hunting Death in Wisconsin

Status
Not open for further replies.
maybe

it was his painting kkk etc that makes folks look at him funny add that to hiding the body illegal gun and some folks might wonder
 
Sorry about the duplicate post.
I did a Vang search prior to posting and i didn't get anything on this incident.

I feel for the family of the victum, but what the Heck. The statement " He couldn't have caused this because he couldn't speek any english. That is our fault, How did this come about that any imegrant cant speek out language.
It never used to be that way, our for fathers didn't alow it.

Gbro
 
gbro

many immigrants came here unable to speak the language. and of them many know more american history than folks born here, apropos nothin at all are you familiar with the relationship these folks had with our government? the reasons that they had to live in refugee camps?
 
So a history of burglary and theft obviously causes someone to eventually murder?
When did anybody cite that as a cause for murder? Somebody listed his record.
His fiance did state clearly that he isn't racist, which is supposed to lead you to conclude he didn't kill the Hmong hunter. So spraying "KKK" on stuff is definitely a rebuttal to what she said.
Hiding the body is suspicious to most people.
I think had if there weren't tensions among the Hmong and other people that they would not make such a big show of scrutinizing this case. However, while police and DA's have made mistakes before, I think that they are only looking at Nichols (as far as we know) for a reason.

Why didn't he use his shotgun? Because it is noisy, maybe. That the shotgun is more convenient in one aspect hardly makes him innocent. People do far more convoluted things than that.
 
Wow....

Well, no one knows what happened. I feel sorry for both guys. Frankly, either of them could have been in real fear of their life because of recent events.

Racial realization is a very common thing from about 15 - 22. I honestly would urge people not to jump to some PC conclusion. At that age, many people are trying to "define" and "identify" themselves and one way to do that is race...

this is a tragedy and an outrage, no matter what the REAL events are. He should have reported what happened, otherwise we are forced to assume he has something to hide.
 
Originally Posted by GBro:
Sorry about the duplicate post.
I did a Vang search prior to posting and i didn't get anything on this incident.

I feel for the family of the victum, but what the Heck. The statement " He couldn't have caused this because he couldn't speek any english. That is our fault, How did this come about that any imegrant cant speek out language.
It never used to be that way, our for fathers didn't alow it.

Gbro

And you can't seem to spell in our language? Is that our fault as well?

Actually according to the article in the first post of this thread the man was taking English language classes. Unfortunately the article is avilable for purchase and not in the archives.

But either way continue on your prejudiced racist tirade about how the immigrants are stupid for not being able to write or read our language (their second language) while you are unable to write our language (I am assuming its your first language).
 
During most the US history there been immigrants who couldn't speak English. They used to really complain about it in the turn of the 20th century with German and Italian immigrants coming over to the US and not knowing a word of the English language. Such comments have continued throughout time. Even further back they said the same again about asian immigrants in the mid 19th century and the dutch settlers. Then add the French in Louisiana that a number even today still don't speak English.

Its not uncommon and never has been for immigrants not to speak English.

And you can't seem to spell in our language? Is that our fault as well?

+1.
 
As I posted in my respones to Gbro's comment the man was trying to learn the English language. He also had a permit to hunt and was perfectly legal to hunt.

I am sorry but why is everyone taking the side of a felon, who was not supposed to be in possession of the firearm he was with and who has a history of vandalism, breaking and entering, and racism over a Vietnamese hunter who was learning to speak our langugage, trying to become an Americaninzed person, and trying to be accepted by our community?
 
apropos nothin at all are you familiar with the relationship these folks had with our government? the reasons that they had to live in refugee camps?
__________________

If you ask me, the American people owe the Hmong people a debt of gratitude for their services to the American cause in Vietnam. How did the American government repay them???? We left them to rot and fight against the Communist North Vietnamese by themselves after we no longer wanted to be in Vietnam. We basically took a group of forest people, promised to support them, trained them to fight our enemies and then left them rot after they fought our war for us.....

If you ask me, take away the fact one of these guys was white and the other was Hmong....How many of you here would be sideing with the CONVICTED FELON CARRYING A FIREARM or the other guy hunting squirels with a clean record.

Ask yourself.....who's the one allowing race to cloud their judgement.
 
Well, except the guy hunting was apparently trespassing according to the original articles. I don't care for that myself. If that was the case, I was curious how the land was marked.
 
I don't know

I'm not that quick to call the white guy a murderer because HE USED A KNIFE.

----If I was a murderer mode=on--------

I'm in the woods, with a shotgun in my hands... if I make a decision to kill someone, I'd use the shotgun damn near every time, if I had the choice.

Besides being far more effective and capable of taking down my target possibly before he knows I'm there... It would make it alot easier to claim it as a hunting accident or even self defense if I got tied to it.

----/off---

Now if someone became a threat at close range, or I somehow got disarmed, then I would use the knife--but those situations are vastly more probable in an SD situation as opposed to a premeditated hate crime.

In the other hand--if attacked, I'd probably revert to the old "If their head is still attached, and they haven't surrendered, they're still a threat" standard... Didn't Col Cooper say something about "Don't count someone out of a gunfight until their head is separated from their body by at least 4 feet"?

The only logical scenario I've got given the kinds of wounds the survivor had would be something like "Vang fired and winged him, for some unknown reason his weapon was out of play, extreme CQC ensued, Vang got disarmed, and the survivor finished him with a knife"

In all honesty, if someone shoots me intentionally and I survive it, there's a 99% chance that I'm either gonna kill them then and there or die trying. If firearms get thrown out of the fray, then they're gonna get stabbed.



I really doubt the survivor's wounds were self-inflicted--too minor if (as is my impression) they were caused by a hunting shotgun at close range. Even if he did figure out someway to do it I'd think 1 hand would have been enough.
 
Too early to come to any conclusions, but there will be a great deal of forensic evidence here. How far away were the shots fired? How and where was the dead hunter hit with the knife? Were there guarding wounds? What signs of struggle were there on the forest floor?

If as the survivor claims, he was shot at a distance by the other hunter, that will leave very different wounds than if he was shot while trying to disarm the man.

The facts that one man was Hmong and the other a convicted felon have NO BEARING on determining if it was murder or self defense. NO BEARING AT ALL.
 
The facts that one man was Hmong and the other a convicted felon have NO BEARING on determining if it was murder or self defense. NO BEARING AT ALL.

EXACTLY!!!!, with the limited info and based on the few articles I've read, I'm going to have to side with the dead hunter. Don't care if he's Hmong, White or Martian.
 
I really doubt the survivor's wounds were self-inflicted--too minor if (as is my impression) they were caused by a hunting shotgun at close range. Even if he did figure out someway to do it I'd think 1 hand would have been enough.
Didn't the Hmong have a .22LR? That leaves a much smaller wound than Nichols' shotgun.
Would you use a shotgun if you didn't know whether there were others in the area? Maybe not.
You are also trying to interject logic in the situation, to a person who has committed crimes without logic - at least from an honest person's standpoint. I understand the point of robbery (at least some of it) without approving of it. The goal is gain, stealing something to sell or use. But what was the point of vandalism? Because he has been convicted of that. So reason doesn't necessarily factor in.

It may be that Nichols was the victim, but the history - criminal (that decided to be in possession of a gun), hiding the body, lying about being racist - tend to look bad. So until there is something that points to another or clears him, suspicion will naturally come his way.
No matter what, victim or not, he did bring some of this his way by violating the terms of his probation.
 
Nichols has been charged. When he was questioned, his story kept on changing. Some statements he made can be seen as racist, but certainly stupid. There are no hate crime charges yet, he has been charged as a felon with a firearm, hiding the body, and murder.

He shot Vang with his shotgun and stabbed him six times - five to the throat. Then jammed a three inch stick in Vang's mouth afterwards.
 
Statistically will probably be a hunting death/accident. Should be murder.

What do you mean "statistically"?? I am pretty sure they will count this as murder there was no accident about it. It is interesting that Nichols keeps saying that the victim fired the first shot that seems to be his only consitancy.
 
bet his lawyer is gonna hate

his moron client making a statement about the guy not speaking english saying "i'm gonna kill you!" kinda hard to be credible

blast him with your shot gun stab him 6 times jam a stick down his throat hide the weapons with your soon to be busted fiancee and then try to peddle a bad lie. hes toast


and 50 freaks thanks for trying to inform the folks about the history of the hmong.
 
his moron client making a statement about the guy not speaking english saying "i'm gonna kill you!" kinda hard to be credible

Yep, criminals aren't exactly bright, this one for sure isn't a MENSA candidate.
 
i always used

to have to explain to my boss when he read the paper and asked me why would he do/say that. "Ray that stuff don't make you smarter. just makes you think you are."
 
I am sorry but why is everyone taking the side of a felon, who was not supposed to be in possession of the firearm he was with and who has a history of vandalism, breaking and entering, and racism over a Vietnamese hunter who was learning to speak our langugage, trying to become an Americaninzed person, and trying to be accepted by our community?

Is that a rhetorical question?


Just finished reading the complaint. He shot the guy and lied about the distance, stabbed him 6 times, stuck a stick into the throat, concealed the body, hid his own firearms, repeated racial slurs in front of the cops, lied to police. I think he screwed himself, even if it was self defense.
 
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=553290
hunter2010807-125.jpg

hunter1010807-125.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top