TallPine
Member
NO ... I think "you" better get off the redneck's property RIGHT NOW!
Plot thickens regarding Wi hunter incident.
- Thread starter bg
- Start date
- Status
Aguila Blanca
Member
The proverbial "shot across the bows" is reserved for the Navy and Coast Guard. Here on dry land, if you point a gun toward another person and pull the trigger, he is justified in shotoing back. Trespassing is not an offense justifying the use of lethal force. "Over-reacting" my foot -- how would he know if it was a "warning shot" or a miss?
Beyond that, I think there are probably some facts missing and I will await more complete and accurate information.
The murder weapon that was used to kill six hunters wasn't an SKS "assault rifle" afterall. It was a Saiga 7.62x39. I read on SKSBOARDS.COM that the serial number of the rifle is H03104079. Check out the serial number on this Saiga at GUNBROKER.COM...
http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=25797175
http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=25797175
What i want to know is if there was a shot fired out of the rifle at him ? i know Csi can tell if the gun was fired but will they be able to tell for sure with out a bullet on into the ground might be hard to find and lot of it destroyed.
Granted someone shoots at me i would probley smoke the shooter .. Course im on the oppsite end as a land owner luckly ive never had this problem 3 miles back to my property and the property in front of me would be better to trespass on .
Granted someone shoots at me i would probley smoke the shooter .. Course im on the oppsite end as a land owner luckly ive never had this problem 3 miles back to my property and the property in front of me would be better to trespass on .
joab
Member
Mark in California
Member
Once hunting I became a might Bewildered when I walked somewhere in the fog. I was confused, and not anywhere near anything I recogized. If some had told me I was tresspassing, I would have responded, thank you which way off your property toward Ruth Lake.
That was not the reaction of someone lost. It was the reactions of someone looking for a fight.
That was not the reaction of someone lost. It was the reactions of someone looking for a fight.
im reading the statments that were posted 1-2 post above my question how did these get out if they are the real thing... isnt this type of statments not released so you dont taint the jury pool and wouldnt it be a sealed court document ?
ReadyontheRight
Member
Reading that statement is a lot different than the "self defense" spin the media are taking. By Vang's own admission from his side of the story, no one fired a shot until Vang "dropped to a crouch position". Presumably, this crouch position involves pointing his "Saiga SKS 7.62x39 caliber" (?) at the land owners.
By Vang's own admission, he suddenly turns around and points his gun at the land owners after trespassing.
By Vang's own admission, he shot people he knows were unarmed (and hid from people he knows were armed).
By Vang's own admission, he shot a man who was yelling "help me" in the back.
This guy needs to be punished.
I too, would love to wait and see the end of this after it's played out in the courts, but in our post-OJ world, the "It's the rifle's fault" and the "It's the insensitive redneck's fault" crowds have already cranked up their spin machines. I want to play out and discuss the true facts of the case and their implications as they come out.
By Vang's own admission, he suddenly turns around and points his gun at the land owners after trespassing.
By Vang's own admission, he shot people he knows were unarmed (and hid from people he knows were armed).
By Vang's own admission, he shot a man who was yelling "help me" in the back.
This guy needs to be punished.
I too, would love to wait and see the end of this after it's played out in the courts, but in our post-OJ world, the "It's the rifle's fault" and the "It's the insensitive redneck's fault" crowds have already cranked up their spin machines. I want to play out and discuss the true facts of the case and their implications as they come out.
Most likely no one will ever know the "truth" except the survivors, and their biases and perceptions will no doubt color their versions of what happened. Both sides can honestly say what they think happened, and the versions could still be miles apart. It's about perspective. And this is assuming that no one is knowingly bending the truth.
Still, shooting a bunch of unarmed people? No excuse for that. Serious jail time for sure.
Likewise, dropping into a pack mentality, using slurs and threats, and firing a "warning shot" in someone's direction is *definitely* the recommended method for getting an armed individual to peacefully leave your property. If it's true, the guy who fired the shot basically killed himself, his buddies, and his buddies' family members. Smart guy. I wonder if the toxicology report will show alcohol.
Most people aren't psycho or evil, but when you mix volatile words, strong egos, and guns, bad things happen. No one backed down. So, everyone in this is a loser, even us, with the broader reaching implications of this event.
Still, shooting a bunch of unarmed people? No excuse for that. Serious jail time for sure.
Likewise, dropping into a pack mentality, using slurs and threats, and firing a "warning shot" in someone's direction is *definitely* the recommended method for getting an armed individual to peacefully leave your property. If it's true, the guy who fired the shot basically killed himself, his buddies, and his buddies' family members. Smart guy. I wonder if the toxicology report will show alcohol.
Most people aren't psycho or evil, but when you mix volatile words, strong egos, and guns, bad things happen. No one backed down. So, everyone in this is a loser, even us, with the broader reaching implications of this event.
I checked with an 'almost' DNR friend of mine (he decided to go county sheriff instead) about the round count allowed while hunting.
In fact I assumed the same answer of '5 rounds' or a maximum of 10 rounds, but my friend corrected me and said that there is NO ROUND COUNT in the state of Wisconsin for deer hunting.
Unfortunately still stuck in Wisconsin
Art :banghead:
In fact I assumed the same answer of '5 rounds' or a maximum of 10 rounds, but my friend corrected me and said that there is NO ROUND COUNT in the state of Wisconsin for deer hunting.
Unfortunately still stuck in Wisconsin
Art :banghead:
Vang's account (if that is it in the links above) makes sense to me. He was walking away when the first guy raised a rifle and fired at him. If that happened, he had every right to shoot the guy with the rifle. After that, his self defense claim is no good IMO.
SPFDRum
Member
Likewise, dropping into a pack mentality, using slurs and threats, and firing a "warning shot" in someone's direction is *definitely* the recommended method for getting an armed individual to peacefully leave your property.
Vangs account only. Now you want racial slurs, ride with me in the back of an ambulance some night. Better yet, be a LEO in a large urban area, where you are out numbered and out gunned.
Vang's account (if that is it in the links above) makes sense to me. He was walking away when the first guy raised a rifle and fired at him. If that happened, he had every right to shoot the guy with the rifle. After that, his self defense claim is no good IMO.
Again Vang's account only. All well and good until you get to the point where he removed his scope prior to shooting. I'll say it again, that is one cool character to take fire, have the ability to remove the scope, aim, shoot, and kill. While the whole time the individual in Vang's acount is just standing there. After he supposily fired the first shot.
Likewise, dropping into a pack mentality, using slurs and threats, and firing a "warning shot" in someone's direction is *definitely* the recommended method for getting an armed individual to peacefully leave your property. If it's true, the guy who fired the shot basically killed himself, his buddies, and his buddies' family members. Smart guy. I wonder if the toxicology report will show alcohol.
And you base this all on what an individual has stated while in custody with the advice of a lawyer. And/or all hunters must be drunk louts.
It seems that some people are so worried about their right to keep and bear arms, that they will grasp at anything to make this appear to be a justified shooting.
Vangs account only. Now you want racial slurs, ride with me in the back of an ambulance some night. Better yet, be a LEO in a large urban area, where you are out numbered and out gunned.
Vang's account (if that is it in the links above) makes sense to me. He was walking away when the first guy raised a rifle and fired at him. If that happened, he had every right to shoot the guy with the rifle. After that, his self defense claim is no good IMO.
Again Vang's account only. All well and good until you get to the point where he removed his scope prior to shooting. I'll say it again, that is one cool character to take fire, have the ability to remove the scope, aim, shoot, and kill. While the whole time the individual in Vang's acount is just standing there. After he supposily fired the first shot.
Likewise, dropping into a pack mentality, using slurs and threats, and firing a "warning shot" in someone's direction is *definitely* the recommended method for getting an armed individual to peacefully leave your property. If it's true, the guy who fired the shot basically killed himself, his buddies, and his buddies' family members. Smart guy. I wonder if the toxicology report will show alcohol.
And you base this all on what an individual has stated while in custody with the advice of a lawyer. And/or all hunters must be drunk louts.
It seems that some people are so worried about their right to keep and bear arms, that they will grasp at anything to make this appear to be a justified shooting.
Last edited:
jefnvk
Member
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/23/hunters.shot/index.html
CNN's version
At least there is some truth coming out of this. A news organization has finally said (or at least printed) that the SKS is a common hunting rifle. Can't help it they called it a variant, but its a start.
Then again, if it's a Saiga, all this goes out the window.
Also from the CNN report:
After he WENT BACK, he asked the man if he was dead, and shot at him again. That seems that self-defense is far fetched at this point.
CNN's version
At least there is some truth coming out of this. A news organization has finally said (or at least printed) that the SKS is a common hunting rifle. Can't help it they called it a variant, but its a start.
Then again, if it's a Saiga, all this goes out the window.
Also from the CNN report:
After he WENT BACK, he asked the man if he was dead, and shot at him again. That seems that self-defense is far fetched at this point.
Yooper
Member
8 victims + 1 rifle != self-defense.
Racial slurs? Talk is cheap.
Racial slurs? Talk is cheap.
SPFDRum
Member
KARE 11 News in the Twin Cities is now reporting a change in Vang's story. At first he stated that they shot at his feet, now they are reporting he is stating the bullet went 400' to 500' past him. A wee bit a differance there. Just maybe the forensic people didn't find a bullet or shot scuff at his feet?
Here's the police report:
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage1.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage2.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage3.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage4.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage5.pdf
I can see a person doing a lot of stupid things out of pure fear after being shot at--stopping to remove your scope while out in the open and being fired upon ain't one of them.
Then you get into his admission that he ran down a man he KNEW to be unarmed and shot him multiple times. He also admits to killing two people on an ATV but claimed they were armed--no weapon was found by police.
BTW, not only is the gun related and therefore qualified to go in General Discussion, it may wind up being a very significant event in the history of American firearm ownership. I'm stumped as to why the original thread(s) got moved out of General Discussion to L&P...
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage1.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage2.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage3.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage4.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/style/news/newsgraphics/files/shotpage5.pdf
Inaccurate. Vang in his statement claims that he saw the rifle aimed THEN crouched, was THEN fired upon (bullet hit about 30' away--BEHIND him says Vang--don't ask me how he knows how far it hit behind him) and THEN he removed the scope and returned fire.
I agree--this is going to be the kicker. He would be totally unable to convince me that he felt his life was in danger and yet he still felt he had time to stop and remove his scope before returning fire.
I can see a person doing a lot of stupid things out of pure fear after being shot at--stopping to remove your scope while out in the open and being fired upon ain't one of them.
Then you get into his admission that he ran down a man he KNEW to be unarmed and shot him multiple times. He also admits to killing two people on an ATV but claimed they were armed--no weapon was found by police.
I was wondering about that--sounds like the evidence didn't match his first story... This guy is so guilty it's not even funny. He got P.O.ed and decided it was his turn. He thought about it, decided what to do, removed the scope for faster target acquisition, killed the guy with the gun and then set about exterminating all the people who called him names. The radio was his undoing...
BTW, not only is the gun related and therefore qualified to go in General Discussion, it may wind up being a very significant event in the history of American firearm ownership. I'm stumped as to why the original thread(s) got moved out of General Discussion to L&P...
effengee
Member
This situation went sour...
Again, not all the facts are in but here goes another soap box statement:
Vang was trespassing plain and simple. Not just inadvertantly (uh-oh, I think I got lost in the fog) but blatantly (Here's a nice spot to hunt from)
When caught, a few humble apologies or even a "plastic" 'Boy, am I glad to see another hunter. I was lost until I found this here stand. So I figured I'd just wait here till somebody came.' He could have avoided having to murder a bunch of people. This wasn't self-defense. Vang was clearly trespassing and I'm sure got rather upset at being called out for it... Even being called names.
He knew he was trespassing and that it is against the law and that puts anyone in the wrong and deserving of a good tongue lashing...
You know darn well that somebody else owns the deer stand you're sitting in if you didn't build it yourself. Generally, most hunters know what respecting other people's property is all about... Given most of the facts that I have gained, Hmong living in the area have a disregard for hunting and fishing laws and use their immigrant status to generally annoy the hell out of the rest of the sporting population. Does that mean you point a gun at him while telling him to get off your land? Sure, if and only if you are willing to have him point one back. Do you fire a pot-shot at him while he's leaving?
Well, maybe if you're drunk, ignorant or just plain aching to start a fight, then yeah.
What would have been the best way?
Asking him to politely leave and/or giving directions, while keeping my firearm pointed safely...
Then I would have sat around deer camp with my friends.
I've had a few situations like this present themselves.
Times where I had to think:
Do I draw or is there a better way to solve this.
All the way to:
A few more pounds of pull and this guy is dead meat.
The anti-mentality?
I think we should ban Hmong's and any AK/SKS from importation.
This would end the problem of innocent hunters and their unarmed families being murdered.
Again, not all the facts are in but here goes another soap box statement:
Vang was trespassing plain and simple. Not just inadvertantly (uh-oh, I think I got lost in the fog) but blatantly (Here's a nice spot to hunt from)
When caught, a few humble apologies or even a "plastic" 'Boy, am I glad to see another hunter. I was lost until I found this here stand. So I figured I'd just wait here till somebody came.' He could have avoided having to murder a bunch of people. This wasn't self-defense. Vang was clearly trespassing and I'm sure got rather upset at being called out for it... Even being called names.
He knew he was trespassing and that it is against the law and that puts anyone in the wrong and deserving of a good tongue lashing...
You know darn well that somebody else owns the deer stand you're sitting in if you didn't build it yourself. Generally, most hunters know what respecting other people's property is all about... Given most of the facts that I have gained, Hmong living in the area have a disregard for hunting and fishing laws and use their immigrant status to generally annoy the hell out of the rest of the sporting population. Does that mean you point a gun at him while telling him to get off your land? Sure, if and only if you are willing to have him point one back. Do you fire a pot-shot at him while he's leaving?
Well, maybe if you're drunk, ignorant or just plain aching to start a fight, then yeah.
What would have been the best way?
Asking him to politely leave and/or giving directions, while keeping my firearm pointed safely...
Then I would have sat around deer camp with my friends.
I've had a few situations like this present themselves.
Times where I had to think:
Do I draw or is there a better way to solve this.
All the way to:
A few more pounds of pull and this guy is dead meat.
The anti-mentality?
I think we should ban Hmong's and any AK/SKS from importation.
This would end the problem of innocent hunters and their unarmed families being murdered.
proletariat
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 26
nothing new
racial slurs, mob mentality, nothing new. This incident is reminiscent of what happened with the Vietnamese Fishermen in Texas who were killed during the 80s where it took U.S. marshals to protect them because of the hostility enacted towards them. Same thing except that was fishing and this is hunting.
IMO the shooter is a crack pot and murdering people is never justified but when you get this bully mentality going especially when others chime in when you probably have been racially taunted for most of your life I understand where his crackpot mentality anger which blew up is comming from. Just look to our riots in LA.
Some people say talk is cheap but others not from here have another saying "a cut from a knife heals but a cut from a word never does..."
Untill we solve this problem we'll never solve the rest.
racial slurs, mob mentality, nothing new. This incident is reminiscent of what happened with the Vietnamese Fishermen in Texas who were killed during the 80s where it took U.S. marshals to protect them because of the hostility enacted towards them. Same thing except that was fishing and this is hunting.
IMO the shooter is a crack pot and murdering people is never justified but when you get this bully mentality going especially when others chime in when you probably have been racially taunted for most of your life I understand where his crackpot mentality anger which blew up is comming from. Just look to our riots in LA.
Some people say talk is cheap but others not from here have another saying "a cut from a knife heals but a cut from a word never does..."
Untill we solve this problem we'll never solve the rest.
joab
Member
Yeah , but a bullet from a Saiga hurts like hell, sometimes for the rest of your life...
Ryder
Member
If I was unarmed and running for the cabin after having just watched you shoot my brother, father, and or best friend you'd better kill me too because you are not getting out of that woods alive once I get to my rifle.
Might I remind everyone that this guy's story is probably a product of a little talk with a lawyer about self-defense laws and mitigating circumstances? What, does anyone actually think the guy is going to say, yeah, I killed at a bunch of guys and a woman whose land I was poaching because I'm a violent guy with a history of domestic abuse and don't like people telling me what to do? No, he's going to cry racism, self-defense, and any other defense that has even a chance at getting him positioned for the trial.
cracked butt
Member
Pack mentality? Horsepucky!
If he had been in my stand on my private property at prime hunting hours and had been giving me grief about making him leave, I would have been chewing his arse out while dialing the sheriff on the cell. I wouldn't have used any racial words, but I would have been calling him much worse things.
Think about the hunters. They pay big bucks to buy land -land in Wisconsin typically sells for $2000 per acre, and people usually buy a minimum of 40 acres for hunting purposes. They have to pay taxes on the land. They probably spend alot of time on the land clearing brush, improving habitat, and probably planting crops for the deer. Deer season is only 9 days long here. If people want to hunt more than the opening and closing weekend, they need to burn up vacation time, making hunting that much more expensive. Now they walk to their stand at a prime hunting time- afternoon on an opening weekend and find some trespassing loser in their stand. The hunter has just lost a lot of invested time and money.
A person tresspassing and taking your stand is stealing from you. He's stealing your time and your money.
I do not buy Vangs story. he:
1. deliberately went onto private property and sat in a stand that obviously belonged to someone else.
2. removed the scope from his rifle in preparation of a shooting.
3. shot 8 people, only one of them armed.
4. killed 6 people, including a young woman.
5. ran after some of his victims and shot them in the back.
I find absolutely no reason to buy into his story, and I doubt a jury will buy it either, barring any evidence found by the Feds that showed the hunting party fired first, and the Feds will figure this out if it did indeed happened.
If he had been in my stand on my private property at prime hunting hours and had been giving me grief about making him leave, I would have been chewing his arse out while dialing the sheriff on the cell. I wouldn't have used any racial words, but I would have been calling him much worse things.
Think about the hunters. They pay big bucks to buy land -land in Wisconsin typically sells for $2000 per acre, and people usually buy a minimum of 40 acres for hunting purposes. They have to pay taxes on the land. They probably spend alot of time on the land clearing brush, improving habitat, and probably planting crops for the deer. Deer season is only 9 days long here. If people want to hunt more than the opening and closing weekend, they need to burn up vacation time, making hunting that much more expensive. Now they walk to their stand at a prime hunting time- afternoon on an opening weekend and find some trespassing loser in their stand. The hunter has just lost a lot of invested time and money.
A person tresspassing and taking your stand is stealing from you. He's stealing your time and your money.
I do not buy Vangs story. he:
1. deliberately went onto private property and sat in a stand that obviously belonged to someone else.
2. removed the scope from his rifle in preparation of a shooting.
3. shot 8 people, only one of them armed.
4. killed 6 people, including a young woman.
5. ran after some of his victims and shot them in the back.
I find absolutely no reason to buy into his story, and I doubt a jury will buy it either, barring any evidence found by the Feds that showed the hunting party fired first, and the Feds will figure this out if it did indeed happened.
Langenator
Member
Just a thought (and I wouldn't be surprised if somebody brought this theory up at trial): What are the odds, given that it was opening weekend of deer season in WI, that a shot was fired, not by Vang or anyone else there, but by someone on a neighboring parcel? Vang thinks he's under fire, and the rest is history.
Still doesn't do much for the whole removing the scope and shooting people in the back bit though.
Still doesn't do much for the whole removing the scope and shooting people in the back bit though.
publius
Member
If you're lost, you don't try to shoot a deer from someone else's stand.
One of the media reports said this guy was in trouble for threatening his wife w/a gun in 2001, and had the cops out to his place twice this year for domestic disputes.
But maybe he was defending himself against her.
One of the media reports said this guy was in trouble for threatening his wife w/a gun in 2001, and had the cops out to his place twice this year for domestic disputes.
But maybe he was defending himself against her.
- Status