Six Hunters Murdered on Private Land in Wisconsin

[genoyamamoto 0]

Quote

So any time a police officer is fired upon, they have the right to slaughter everyone in sight?

Hey, they could just call in air support and drop napalm!

Asinine statements such as these serve no useful purpose.

Quote

Actually, prudence dictates that you only shoot *real and imminent* threats, not *possible* threats. Everyone is a "possible" threat.

I take it you have an objective definition of a "real and imminent threat" that is free of a person's perception of a situation?
Here's a trivial example: If I point a gun at you, is that a "real and imminent threat"? What if the gun isn't loaded? A fake?

Reread my post. The point of my previous post is that one has to understand the *perception* of threat, not the possibility of a threat.

Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me
Feel the hate...
Photos here

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Asinine statements such as these serve no useful purpose.

It wasn't asinine. It was a logical extension based upon your statement.

Someone who is running away from you is not a threat. If you shoot a fleeing person in the back, you will go to prison. It's murder.

What is truly asinine is for you to presume that you can justifiably shoot someone in the back who is running away from you, just because you had some crazy idea that they were trying to take cover so that they could return fire. Unless they turn back towards you with a weapon, you can't justifiably shoot them.

Good luck with that story in court.

[billvon 2,433]

>If you shoot a fleeing person in the back, you will go to prison. It's murder.

Didn't we have a long discussion a while back that if you believe someone is running for a reason (say, a gun, an RPG, or a better firing position) that's it's completely acceptable to shoot them in the back, and then continue firing as they lie there on the ground?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>If you shoot a fleeing person in the back, you will go to prison. It's murder.

Didn't we have a long discussion a while back that if you believe someone is running for a reason (say, a gun, an RPG, or a better firing position) that's it's completely acceptable to shoot them in the back, and then continue firing as they lie there on the ground?

Marines in Iraq have slightly different guidelines as to what they can shoot and what they can't. If you can justify shooting someone in the back, who's running away without a gun, then Bill, I think I could justify shoting just about anyone under any circumstances whatsoever.

We're at a DZ near LA. I cut you off undercanopy for whatever reason. You read me the riot act. Let's say I decide to give you a little whatfor. You then turn around and storm off. I'll just shoot you in the back, and say I thought you were going to get your gun. Does that work for you?
(you know me well enough to know I'm not really threatening you)

Come on. Shooting unarmed people in the back as they move away from you is just not justifiable (outside the military).

edit: spelling

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Here's a trivial example: If I point a gun at you, is that a "real and imminent threat"? What if the gun isn't loaded? A fake?

Reread my post. The point of my previous post is that one has to understand the *perception* of threat, not the possibility of a threat.

When it comes down to it, the standard is what a reasonable person would perceive as a threat of death/GBH.
(actually, twelve "reasonable people" if you want to nit pick)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dingley 0]

The point of my previous post is that one has to understand the *perception* of threat, not the possibility of a threat.
***

So is this an absolute (shooting in the back=murder)?

We could all invent scenario's, and we could all imagine spanking someone from behind if we felt they were still a threat. I hate guns, but could imagine using an attacker's gun on him if I got the chance. I wouldn't care which part of his anatomy I hit if I thought he was about to do the same to me.

So, what's the story? Is U.S. law based on some kind of antiquated chivalry, or is there some leeway for a victim who genuinely fears for their life?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

So is this an absolute (shooting in the back=murder)?

We could all invent scenario's, and we could all imagine spanking someone from behind if we felt they were still a threat. I hate guns, but could imagine using an attacker's gun on him if I got the chance. I wouldn't care which part of his anatomy I hit if I thought he was about to do the same to me.

So, what's the story? Is U.S. law based on some kind of antiquated chivalry, or is there some leeway for a victim who genuinely fears for their life?

When did I ever say that hitting someone in the back is automatically murder? I said shooting someone in the bakc who is fleeing without a gun is murder.

In self defense scenarios it is very easy to hit a person in the back. Simplest example: Someone attacks me. I shoot and hit him a little off the center line. He curls his upper body around the wound but continues to advance. I shoot again. He spins but continues foward, I fire once more, and he turns so that the bullet enters his back.

Would you say I murdered him?

However, the guy in the woods shot people who were running away unarmed. He murdered them.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dingley 0]

Quote

When did I ever say that hitting someone in the back is automatically murder?

No, you didn't say that. My mistake. I think that JonRich gave that impression.

This is where it gets complicated, though. This guy who shot people in the back certainly looks like a psycho, but there's some guessing going on. For what it's worth, I find it hard to believe that there wasn't something more to the story. Anyway, who knows?

I'm just trying to understand why some pro-gun people react so instantly to a shot in the back. As you said, gunshots cause physical reactions, spasms that result in involuntary actions. Your oncoming attacker may simply be falling towards you. I, as a juror, may say that you were using his attack as an excuse to kill him. Do you feel protected by law, or would you feel compelled to embelish the story to cover your back?

[genoyamamoto 0]

Quote

However, the guy in the woods shot people who were running away unarmed. He murdered them.

What if they were armed? Would it no longer be considered murder?

What if you THOUGHT they were armed?

What if the deceased who allegedly fired a shot subsequently dropped his weapon, turned and ran away? Would it be considered murder or self defense? Can anyone exclude the possibility that he/she has another weapon available?

Would it be murder to shoot someone who has a weapon with no ammunition? They no longer pose a threat.

Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me
Feel the hate...
Photos here

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I, as a juror, may say that you were using his attack as an excuse to kill him. Do you feel protected by law, or would you feel compelled to embelish the story to cover your back?

I worked crime scenes and firearms with a very "busy" county police department. I wouldn't embellish because there isn't very much you can change that won't raise a bullshit flag. Well, not much of substance anyway.

Since I know I'm not a murderer, I wouldn't need to emblellish my tale of woe to keep myself on the up and up.

Like my sig line used to be:

Quote

I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried out by six.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Jesus Mary and Joseph, between you and Dekker I'm never going to get anything done.

Quote

What if they were armed? Would it no longer be considered murder?

What if you THOUGHT they were armed?

There's a big difference between "they were armed" and "thought they were armed."

Besides, does a person become a threat just because they are holding a gun? No. They have to take action that makes you fear death/GBH.

If they were armed, maybe he could make some sort of justifiability argument. They weren't. They were running away.

Quote

What if the deceased who allegedly fired a shot subsequently dropped his weapon, turned and ran away? Would it be considered murder or self defense? Can anyone exclude the possibility that he/she has another weapon available?

I haven't passed judgment on the first shooting because the details of what went on aren't known to us. Leave that to fornesics and trial. However, the rest of the deaths were murder, no two ways about it.

In your scenario, maybe shooting the first guy to confront him wouldn't be murder. I don't know so haven't said on way or the other. It's possible, but so are a lot of more dmaning scenarios.

Quote

Would it be murder to shoot someone who has a weapon with no ammunition? They no longer pose a threat.

It doesn't even have to be a real gun, let alone be loaded. The person being threatened with an unloaded gun has no way of knowing whether the gun is loaded or not. For his own safety, he obviously has to treat it as if it were.

I have to tell you, if someone is pointing a gun at me shouting that they are going to kill me, I'm going to believe him. I'm also going to do everything in my power to stop him.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dingley 0]

Quote

Since I know I'm not a murderer, I wouldn't need to emblellish my tale of woe to keep myself on the up and up.

'Knowing' you're not a murderer may appear flimsy in court to a juror who 'just knows' that you are.

We had this with the Tony Martin case (old man, living alone, burgled regularly, shot young boy as he was running away). I had sympathy with Martin at first, but came down on the side of the law when I read the case.

I'd pretty much expect anyone to be tried for murder if they went too far in self-defence in Britain. I imagine the U.S. to be different, simply because you are allowed to own guns. Unlike you, I think they're an accident waiting to happen.

Put it another way - do you think that the 'no shooting in the back' rule/understanding/bottom line stops lots of murders that otherwise would have happened, or do you think that it's unrealistic?

And lastly...how could anyone know that someone's gun isn't loaded?.....and I don't mean because you counted down the bullets as they were shot.

You just answered that while I was writing.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>If you shoot a fleeing person in the back, you will go to prison. It's murder.

Didn't we have a long discussion a while back that if you believe someone is running for a reason (say, a gun, an RPG, or a better firing position) that's it's completely acceptable to shoot them in the back, and then continue firing as they lie there on the ground?

Are you thinking of John Kerry?

[billvon 2,433]

>Are you thinking of John Kerry?

Interesting. Will Kerry replace "but Clinton lied!" as the preferred way for conservatives to change the subject? I thought Michael Moore might be in the running based on recent posts, but maybe not.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Are you thinking of John Kerry?

Interesting. Will Kerry replace "but Clinton lied!" as the preferred way for conservatives to change the subject? I thought Michael Moore might be in the running based on recent posts, but maybe not.

I was being serious.

[Kennedy 0]

Long article, but it puts out a number of facts I hadn't heard before.

[Mr. Rodgers voice]
Can you say "Life without the possibility of parole?"

I knew you could.
[/voice]

Quote

Hunting for Answers

Every year, the residents of any number of states enjoy hunting seasons on various wild game. One of the most popular prey in North America is the white-tailed deer. Hunting is a sport enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, the vast majority of whom take their hobby very seriously and who act with the responsibility necessary for success and safe enjoyment of their hunts. Although there are a few injuries and fatalities annually, the rates are quite low given the vast numbers of those who go hunting every year. There were just 93 fatalities in all of North America in 1998, a third of which were self-inflicted, according to Hunting Accident Statistics for Canada, the United States, and Mexico as compiled by the International Hunting Education Association. (For contrast, consider that an average of 37 skiers or snow boarders die annually in the United States, or that an average of 207 people per year die in ATV mishaps in America, neither sport of which involves "deadly weapons.")

Of course, even one death is too many. But in fairness, most hunting accidents are frankly caused largely by the stupidity of the shooter, the victim, or both. Victims all too frequently turn out to have failed to wear bright orange or another identifying color separating their movements from the movement of legitimate game, or wander without thought or warning into their partner's field of fire. An appalling number of victims are shot solely because they, or another shooter, are handling their firearms irresponsibly. Statistics from the 2002 hunting season in Wisconsin are conclusive in that regard.

But on this year's opening weekend for gun deer hunting season in Wisconsin, the unthinkable happened: one hunter deliberately shot and killed several other hunters. And that has, if you'll pardon the pun, given real ammo for the first time to gun control groups which have not been able to adequately counter the notion that Americans love their firearms because Americans love to hunt (perhaps even more of us appreciate the ability to defend ourselves as well, but hunters have truly stood up for their Second Amendment rights steadfastly, consistently, and in large numbers, and they deserve the credit for having done so).

There are differences in the testimony as to what happened in the woods on November 21, but all agree on a few of the salient details:

Chang Vang, a 36 year-old Hmong man from St. Paul, Minnesota was caught in a deer stand on private property near Rice Lake, Wisconsin. The property owner and another hunter told him to leave. Vang says he denied having seen any "no trespassing" signs, but that he climbed down and began to walk away. At that point, one of the shooting victims who survived says that Vang whirled around and started shooting; Vang claims one of the hunters shot at him before he returned fire. He also maintains that he shot the men (and one woman) because they called him racist names (something which has been uniformly called improbable by those who knew the victims). There can be no dispute, however, that in the end five people lay dead and three were wounded; one of the wounded later died of his injuries. Vang, meanwhile, is being held on a $2.5 million bond on suspicion of murder and attempted murder.

Whatever Vang's story as to his motivations, other facts from Vang's perspective remain consistent with testimony from a victim (Vang has waived his right to an attorney and has, say police, been cooperative with their investigations).Vang acknowledges that he reversed his orange jacket to camouflage, that he reloaded his rifle, and that he actively chased the scattering men even as they begged for help (he shot one running man in the back). He also told authorities that he returned to the center of carnage, saw one man still standing, and said, "You're not dead yet?" and shot at him again (an article in The Electric Newspaper, an Asian publication, has these and other details). An account of the incident released by the authorities makes no mention of any of the hunters firing first, but does report Vang's claims he was lost and unaware he was on private property.

There have, say some local hunters, been problems with Hmong (a group of people originally from Laos) immigrants in the past. The Hmong, the hunters say, refuse to recognize private property. Others suggest that some of such hunters have a difficult time reading the maps that show public lands vs. private property. One Rice Lake, Wisconsin local says that "they let all these foreigners in here, and they walk all over everybody's property." Now that may or may not be true, but Chang Vang has lived in the United States for 24 years, and according to police, speaks excellent English. If he doesn't recognize private property, that's not cultural ignorance but a deliberate refusal to learn or to recognize the laws of his adopted country. Meanwhile, Hmong leaders are quoted as having "condemned the shootings and offered condolences to the victims' families," saying that "What happened in Wisconsin is in no way representative of the Hmong people."

While families grieve in Wisconsin, and Hmong immigrants throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin worry about repercussions, the Brady Campaign has been quick to ask if, with the six deaths, the NRA will "tell the truth about military-style assault weapons." Even while admitting that the SKS rifle purportedly used in the killings wasn't included in the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban, the Brady Campaign says it should be banned for civilian use. It bolsters its argument with a statement from the National Shooting Sports Foundation indicating that "this is not a gun you go deer hunting with."

That's correct to a point in that it may not be a preferred weapon. But other hunting groups suggest that many hunters use the SKS, and the size of the round fired is just about the same as the preferred caliber for deer hunting (though the cartridge itself is smaller). Even more importantly, since when is a "legitimate" hunting use the dividing line between a firearm protected by the Second Amendment and one that's not?

Meanwhile, the Violence Policy Center says that the incident in Wisconsin proves that there's the need for an assault weapons ban as well as offering definitive proof that even "armed hunters [were] no match for [an] SKS assault rifle." Of course, that contention conveniently ignores the fact the SKS wasn't part of the previous Assault Weapons Ban, and it fails utterly to acknowledge that only one of the eight hunters on the scene was armed and that he was the first to be shot, effectively eliminating any chance he had for self defense.

The inevitable calls for more laws to protect against this kind of thing are no surprise. But the fact that existing laws were ignored in this case is something no one is talking about, perhaps because it would definitively show just now worthless such laws are. Perhaps the single most important fact to point that out is found in the idea that Chang Vang had a firearm at all. After the shootings and the subsequent arrest, police say that Chang Vang was no stranger to them. In fact, they'd been called for at least two domestic violence calls to his home within the past 18 months. And three years ago, Vang was arrested for felony domestic assault after his wife claimed he'd threatened her with a handgun. And yet a spokesman for the St. Paul Police Department said, "We have nothing in our records that would ever indicate he was capable of the level of violence we saw in northwestern Wisconsin." Only by ignoring the blatantly obvious can the police claim they were clueless that Vang had a tendency toward deadly violence. But just as Vang ignored the law, the police ignored Vang. He was let out of jail after that felony arrest because his wife refused to file charges.

Since so many victims of domestic violence refuse to file charges against their abuser (some reports indicate that as many as 90% may decline to do so), many states have adopted the position that the police will file the charges on behalf of the victim. In New Jersey, for example, police are required to do so if a weapon was involved in the altercation; California cops must make an arrest if there's any visible sign of injury, and the filing of charges is then solely up to prosecutors. If any laws need reformation, then perhaps Minnesota should consider whether or not it needs laws like those in New Jersey or California (I was unable to find any such provision currently on the books in Minnesota, and in fact could only locate references for victims who wished to file charges themselves).

Of course, no matter what laws are considered or passed as a result of the deaths in Wisconsin, the effectiveness of such laws is predicated solely on whether or not a would-be criminal chooses to obey them. It must be noted that there are laws against abusing your wife, yet Chang Vang was suspected of doing so at least three times, one of them with the clear threat of extreme violence. There are laws against trespassing, yet Chang Vang didn't take the initiative to ensure he didn't do so. (Did he have a map? Was he capable of following it? Could he read a compass? If not, why was he irresponsible enough to be in unfamiliar terrorist?) There are laws against using deadly force in circumstances where your life isn't threatened, and if somebody did call him names, surely none of us would suggest that offensiveness is worthy of death. Even if we assume that Vang was fired on first, why did he continue to track down and kill without mercy unarmed hunters trying only to run away, and after shooting the only armed man among them?

The bottom line is that whether or not Chang Vang legally owned a firearm or what kind of gun it was is immaterial. Had his gun been illegal, a man inclined to disregard other laws will almost certainly ignore just one more. The reality is that the tragic circumstances in Wisconsin have nothing to do with laws, guns or ethnicity, and everything to do with a man who apparently methodically and without legitimate justification murdered other human beings in cold blood. That kind of man can't be stopped by anything so petty as a statute. The threat he represents can, however, be eliminated via the justice system.

In fact, there's only one change in the laws of the state of Wisconsin I'd personally support in the aftermath of Vang's actions. That's the restoration of the death penalty there (it was abolished in 1853), preferably via firing squad.

http://www.libertyforall.net/2005/jan2/Hunting.html

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[storm1977 0]

STILL AMAZES ME THIS IS NOT IN THE NEWS EVERYDAY.

We had to deal with the Laci Peterson case for over a year, andthis gets pushed under the rug.

Let's see Guy is trespassing, and kills 5 unarmed people and one armed person who never took a shot.... hmmmm.

Reasons it is not in the News?

Because the crime was commited by a minority. Because the victims were white....

Let's pretend this story was about a white guy who
killed 6 Loasian guys in the woods.....
Would it not be headlines for years???

Disgusting....

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[SkyDekker 1,144]

your right, the almighty white race is being surpressed......

[freethefly 6]

This case has to get in line for sensationalism after Robert Blake. I suspect that will be the next big trial. I wonder if they will call Fred Bird as a character witness? "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.....Do wop diddy do....

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[storm1977 0]

Surpressed????

No, I think the opposite is true. Whites are made out to be the evil ones....

I actually heard on a talk program that it was the Fault of the USA. Why?
Because Us involvment in Vietnam and Loas, et al. has caused this person and his family, and other like him to grow up in a world of violence.
People like him watched his parents get killed and he doesn't know any better....

CUT THE SHIT!!!!
The same could be said about the Jews post WWII, but I think they turned out alright.

THis story was on the news for about 2-4 days.
This is MASS MURDER!!!!
Trust me Dekker, if "Whitie" commited the same Mass murder of a group of Hmongs this would be in the news for more than a year.

It is a travesty IMO.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty