Chai Vang guilty on all 6 counts...

[waggy]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So everybody cool with Vang was cool with This guy too, right?

Just cleaning up the gene pool a little bit, right jpeyton?

nope that guy should be in jail to. i cant believe he was first found not guilty. he should be sitting in jail for murder.

but you can't compare them. they were just asking for money and this guy was afraid of blacks. they were not calling him names or nothing. just begging for money and the guy panicked and started firring.

 

[ChaoZ]

You people keep talking about freedom of speech. Go yell fire in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire and see what happens. Yea I know calling people racial slurs doesn't physically endanger them, but it does verbally and emotionally.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: alchemize
So everybody cool with Vang was cool with This guy too, right?

Just cleaning up the gene pool a little bit, right jpeyton?

Goetz has admitted to making racial slurs three years before the shooting. But, he recently told NBC, he was using drugs at the time.

"I was a monster," he said. "But I wasn't a monster until several years alone in New York."

At the time, Goetz called New York a lawless city, and admitted shooting Cabey and the others, even to going back and shooting Cabey a second time. "You seem to be doing all right,'" Goetz recalled telling the young man. "'Here's another.'"

Goetz said it himself, he was a "monster". He was on drugs, an admitted racist, and should have been found guilty.

Doesn't matter his state of mind. And who is to say Vang isn't racist? His family appears to be like you.

Vang's sister, Chou Vang, said the jury's short deliberations were not fair to her brother.

"Everyone was white. They do not understand. They will never understand what my brother went through out there," she said.

He was being outnumbered by a different race, that was harrassing him. By your logic, Goetz had every right to "clean up the gene pool".

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: ChaoZ
You people keep talking about freedom of speech. Go yell fire in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire and see what happens. Yea I know calling people racial slurs doesn't physically endanger them, but it does verbally and emotionally.

Sorry, freedom of speech doesn't cover you yelling fire in the crowded theater.

And nobody is saying that it's okay morally to use racial slurs, only that it's legal.

You can't assault and/or kill someone for calling you names.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: alchemize
So everybody cool with Vang was cool with This guy too, right?

Just cleaning up the gene pool a little bit, right jpeyton?

Goetz has admitted to making racial slurs three years before the shooting. But, he recently told NBC, he was using drugs at the time.

"I was a monster," he said. "But I wasn't a monster until several years alone in New York."

At the time, Goetz called New York a lawless city, and admitted shooting Cabey and the others, even to going back and shooting Cabey a second time. "You seem to be doing all right,'" Goetz recalled telling the young man. "'Here's another.'"

Goetz said it himself, he was a "monster". He was on drugs, an admitted racist, and should have been found guilty.

Doesn't matter his state of mind. And who is to say Vang isn't racist? His family appears to be like you.

Vang's sister, Chou Vang, said the jury's short deliberations were not fair to her brother.

"Everyone was white. They do not understand. They will never understand what my brother went through out there," she said.

He was being outnumbered by a different race, that was harrassing him. By your logic, Goetz had every right to "clean up the gene pool".

Well I'm glad you like my logic enough to use it. Wish more of you fools would think that way.

 

[ghostman]

I read an earlier article about this and didn't bother reading the entire thread. In the end, it is his word against theirs. If what the asian guy said is true and I were in his shoes, I'd probably do the same thing. Now, before you go "Wow..." and pass it off as if the post is beneath you, try to see it in another way. (And I'm going to play on race here, because I assume most of the people siding against the asian guy is white. So if you're too PC, stop reading.) Imagine you are white and you wander into a black neighborhood. A gang surrounds you, with weapons clearly visible. They start throwing out racials slurs. As you try to get out, one young teenager pulls out his gun and shoots to your side. You, too, are armed and you're a great shot. You shoot in self-defence. Would you honestly stop shooting when they start to scatter? When you know you've killed their brother and it would be short matter for them to gather more armed gang members and return? It sounds A LOT more reasonable to shoot someone in the back, doesn't it? And witnesses are useless here - you're in THEIR community. Any witness would be for them, whether it's true or not.

Is what you do morally right? Of course not. But I doubt many of you could overcome your own instincts for self-preservation. I don't believe I can.

Once again, I'm not saying he's right. He could be insane for all I know. But it's not nearly as simple as it sounds.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: alchemize
So everybody cool with Vang was cool with This guy too, right?

Just cleaning up the gene pool a little bit, right jpeyton?

Goetz has admitted to making racial slurs three years before the shooting. But, he recently told NBC, he was using drugs at the time.

"I was a monster," he said. "But I wasn't a monster until several years alone in New York."

At the time, Goetz called New York a lawless city, and admitted shooting Cabey and the others, even to going back and shooting Cabey a second time. "You seem to be doing all right,'" Goetz recalled telling the young man. "'Here's another.'"

Goetz said it himself, he was a "monster". He was on drugs, an admitted racist, and should have been found guilty.

Doesn't matter his state of mind. And who is to say Vang isn't racist? His family appears to be like you.

Vang's sister, Chou Vang, said the jury's short deliberations were not fair to her brother.

"Everyone was white. They do not understand. They will never understand what my brother went through out there," she said.

He was being outnumbered by a different race, that was harrassing him. By your logic, Goetz had every right to "clean up the gene pool".

THEY ASKED FOR $5! thats it. they didn't sit and harass him. they didn't call him names. they didn't force him. they just asked for $5! thats it!

he is a MURDERER. He was mugged 2 weeks before this happened by a black man. he was paranoid and scared. so when they walked up to him he panicked and started firring.

he deserves to sit in jail for life for it.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Classy, my buddy...

You live in the United States. You and everyone else here has this wonderful thing called freedom of speech.

You may not like what I have to say, & I may not like what you have to say, but this freedom requires that we put up with one another.

Now as much as you may not like someone calling you racially derived names, you don't have much choice but to put up with them. Would I feel particularly bad if those doing the slurring got a punch in the face? Of course not. But I would support prosecution of the individual for assault (and perhaps buy them a beer when they get out).

If any response is somewhat understandable that MIGHT be. Still assault, but sometimes it's worth it.

Shooting an entire family is not justifiable in any way, shape, or form.

Even if his "they shot first" story is 100% true he was STILL not justified in shooting all of them. By all accounts they had one gun, & chasing them around shooting them in the back is NOT self defense.

None of us are in a position to determine what did or didn't happen, but even if we take him at his word he is STILL a murderer.

Viper GTS

/thread
Case closed, there is no argument or even a legitimate counter point to what Viper just wrote.

again, this is not describing the circumstances.

also, i did a quick google search on doe vs umich. and that seems to be a rule regarding potentially racist speech was too vague. some pysch student wanted to publish some studies that might be racist in analysis and doesn't even address being allowed to say racist things to someone in a verbal abusive manner. if you can find a link i'd be happy to read, but it seems to be a different situation.

I always get this opinion by the US district court during searching, but in it it writes "It is clear that so-called "fighting words" are not entitled to First Amendment protection. Chaplinsky v. New
Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942). These would
include "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or
'fighting words'--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to
incite an immediate breach of the peace." Id. at 572, 62 S.Ct. at 769. Under
certain circumstances racial and ethnic epithets, slurs, and insults might fall
within this description and could constitutionally be prohibited by the
University. In addition, such speech may also be sufficient to state a claim
for common law intentional infliction of emotional distress."

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ghostman
I read an earlier article about this and didn't bother reading the entire thread. In the end, it is his word against theirs. If what the asian guy said is true and I were in his shoes, I'd probably do the same thing. Now, before you go "Wow..." and pass it off as if the post is beneath you, try to see it in another way. (And I'm going to play on race here, because I assume most of the people siding against the asian guy is white. So if you're too PC, stop reading.) Imagine you are white and you wander into a black neighborhood. A gang surrounds you, with weapons clearly visible. They start throwing out racials slurs. As you try to get out, one young teenager pulls out his gun and shoots to your side. You, too, are armed and you're a great shot. You shoot in self-defence. Would you honestly stop shooting when they start to scatter? When you know you've killed their brother and it would be short matter for them to gather more armed gang members and return? It sounds A LOT more reasonable to shoot someone in the back, doesn't it? And witnesses are useless here - you're in THEIR community. Any witness would be for them, whether it's true or not.

Is what you do morally right? Of course not. But I doubt many of you could overcome your own instincts for self-preservation. I don't believe I can.

Once again, I'm not saying he's right. He could be insane for all I know. But it's not nearly as simple as it sounds.

i can even justify maybe the first few killings. IF it is true that they shot first at the guy (doubtfull from what i read). but the ones where he HUNTS down the others who were unarmed and shoots them in the back is murder.

as others have said racist remarks are not justification for murder. maybe a knock up side the head but not murder.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: alchemize
So everybody cool with Vang was cool with This guy too, right?

Just cleaning up the gene pool a little bit, right jpeyton?

Goetz has admitted to making racial slurs three years before the shooting. But, he recently told NBC, he was using drugs at the time.

"I was a monster," he said. "But I wasn't a monster until several years alone in New York."

At the time, Goetz called New York a lawless city, and admitted shooting Cabey and the others, even to going back and shooting Cabey a second time. "You seem to be doing all right,'" Goetz recalled telling the young man. "'Here's another.'"

Goetz said it himself, he was a "monster". He was on drugs, an admitted racist, and should have been found guilty.

Doesn't matter his state of mind. And who is to say Vang isn't racist? His family appears to be like you.

Vang's sister, Chou Vang, said the jury's short deliberations were not fair to her brother.

"Everyone was white. They do not understand. They will never understand what my brother went through out there," she said.

He was being outnumbered by a different race, that was harrassing him. By your logic, Goetz had every right to "clean up the gene pool".

THEY ASKED FOR $5! thats it. they didn't sit and harass him. they didn't call him names. they didn't force him. they just asked for $5! thats it!

he is a MURDERER. He was mugged 2 weeks before this happened by a black man. he was paranoid and scared. so when they walked up to him he panicked and started firring.

he deserves to sit in jail for life for it.

I don't disagree with you. But his story is no different than Vangs. They asked him to leave their property. Perhaps in a threatening way, which they had every right to do. So it's really about as apples to appples as we are gonna find.

My point was is the Vang apologists are no better than the Goetz apologists.

 

[Pacfanweb]

What's interesting is how some folks here like Classy just automatically assume a group of white guys naturally would have made racial slurs towards Mr. Vang.
That's just as racist as those men would be if they really made racial slurs towards Vang.

Either way, it doesn't matter what they said. He still had no right to kill them, and he certainly had no right to chase them down and shoot them multiple times in the back.

Why can't it be as simple as Vang is crazy?

Edit: Because his credibility isn't too good right now. The survivors have a different story, and they didn't chase anyone down and shoot them in the back.

 

[digitalsm]

No matter what his fvcking story is. It doesnt matter, he committed murder by fact he shot multiple people in the fvcking BACK. That is NOT self defense.

 

[digitalsm]

You shoot in self-defence

Shooting people in the back is NEVER self defense. This is settled case law. Hes guilty of murder. And yes it is premeditated, because it takes an act of premeditation to shoot someone in the back. It was the proper verdict.

All this talk about racial slurs is moot.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
What's interesting is how some folks here like Classy just automatically assume a group of white guys naturally would have made racial slurs towards Mr. Vang.
That's just as racist as those men would be if they really made racial slurs towards Vang.

Either way, it doesn't matter what they said. He still had no right to kill them, and he certainly had no right to chase them down and shoot them multiple times in the back.

Why can't it be as simple as Vang is crazy?

Edit: Because his credibility isn't too good right now. The survivors have a different story, and they didn't chase anyone down and shoot them in the back.

Man give me a f'in a break. What? You think the guy just wandered in the wodds deer hunting and just for no reason at all shot 8 people killing 6? Let me guess you think the group of white guys baked him some apple pie and were just out there to invite him to have a picnic? I am not even going to go down this road on this one again. People do kill for no reason, but they don't go out the woods where more than likely there is no one out there but them. And the only reason why some of you got your britches all in a bunch is because the dude is asian and the people he killed were white.
Explain this, why would a man who is looking to kill people go into the woods to find people? He was in the woods. So that tells me one thing, that morning the last he was thinking about was killing a bunch of people? Now answer me this, why would he shoot a bunch of people for nothing? We know he ain't crazy, well from psychotic stand point anyway. See the problem here is many of you don't want to admit that the white guys may have and more than likely did something wrong. Instead you make excuses, or say even in the face of racial slurs this man had no right to kill. On the surface that may be true. But what if they truly shot at him as he said? What if he shot the people because he was afraid they would get guns and come after him. Something set off the guy and it damn sure wasn't their hospitality. They did something wrong, but on that day it was the last wrong thing that they would ever do.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
What's interesting is how some folks here like Classy just automatically assume a group of white guys naturally would have made racial slurs towards Mr. Vang.
That's just as racist as those men would be if they really made racial slurs towards Vang.

Either way, it doesn't matter what they said. He still had no right to kill them, and he certainly had no right to chase them down and shoot them multiple times in the back.

Why can't it be as simple as Vang is crazy?

Edit: Because his credibility isn't too good right now. The survivors have a different story, and they didn't chase anyone down and shoot them in the back.

Man give me a f'in a break. What? You think the guy just wandered in the wodds deer hunting and just for no reason at all shot 8 people killing 6? Let me guess you think the group of white guys baked him some apple pie and were just out there to invite him to have a picnic? I am not even going to go down this road on this one again. People do kill for no reason, but they don't go out the woods where more than likely there is no one out there but them. And the only reason why some of you got your britches all in a bunch is because the dude is asian and the people he killed were white.
Explain this, why would a man who is looking to kill people go into the woods to find people? He was in the woods. So that tells me one thing, that morning the last he was thinking about was killing a bunch of people? Now answer me this, why would he shoot a bunch of people for nothing? We know he ain't crazy, well from psychotic stand point anyway. See the problem here is many of you don't want to admit that the white guys may have and more than likely did something wrong. Instead you make excuses, or say even in the face of racial slurs this man had no right to kill. On the surface that may be true. But what if they truly shot at him as he said? What if he shot the people because he was afraid they would get guns and come after him. Something set off the guy and it damn sure wasn't their hospitality. They did something wrong, but on that day it was the last wrong thing that they would ever do.

Amen to that!

 

[Sacraster]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: classy


Man give me a f'in a break. What? You think the guy just wandered in the wodds deer hunting and just for no reason at all shot 8 people killing 6? Let me guess you think the group of white guys baked him some apple pie and were just out there to invite him to have a picnic? I am not even going to go down this road on this one again. People do kill for no reason, but they don't go out the woods where more than likely there is no one out there but them. And the only reason why some of you got your britches all in a bunch is because the dude is asian and the people he killed were white.
Explain this, why would a man who is looking to kill people go into the woods to find people? He was in the woods. So that tells me one thing, that morning the last he was thinking about was killing a bunch of people? Now answer me this, why would he shoot a bunch of people for nothing? We know he ain't crazy, well from psychotic stand point anyway. See the problem here is many of you don't want to admit that the white guys may have and more than likely did something wrong. Instead you make excuses, or say even in the face of racial slurs this man had no right to kill. On the surface that may be true. But what if they truly shot at him as he said? What if he shot the people because he was afraid they would get guns and come after him. Something set off the guy and it damn sure wasn't their hospitality. They did something wrong, but on that day it was the last wrong thing that they would ever do.

Amen to that!

agree

 

[Dasenergi]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
What's interesting is how some folks here like Classy just automatically assume a group of white guys naturally would have made racial slurs towards Mr. Vang.
That's just as racist as those men would be if they really made racial slurs towards Vang.

Either way, it doesn't matter what they said. He still had no right to kill them, and he certainly had no right to chase them down and shoot them multiple times in the back.

Why can't it be as simple as Vang is crazy?

Edit: Because his credibility isn't too good right now. The survivors have a different story, and they didn't chase anyone down and shoot them in the back.

Man give me a f'in a break. What? You think the guy just wandered in the wodds deer hunting and just for no reason at all shot 8 people killing 6? Let me guess you think the group of white guys baked him some apple pie and were just out there to invite him to have a picnic? I am not even going to go down this road on this one again. People do kill for no reason, but they don't go out the woods where more than likely there is no one out there but them. And the only reason why some of you got your britches all in a bunch is because the dude is asian and the people he killed were white.
Explain this, why would a man who is looking to kill people go into the woods to find people? He was in the woods. So that tells me one thing, that morning the last he was thinking about was killing a bunch of people? Now answer me this, why would he shoot a bunch of people for nothing? We know he ain't crazy, well from psychotic stand point anyway. See the problem here is many of you don't want to admit that the white guys may have and more than likely did something wrong. Instead you make excuses, or say even in the face of racial slurs this man had no right to kill. On the surface that may be true. But what if they truly shot at him as he said? What if he shot the people because he was afraid they would get guns and come after him. Something set off the guy and it damn sure wasn't their hospitality. They did something wrong, but on that day it was the last wrong thing that they would ever do.

Amen to that!

and you think cause hes asian and they were white that it had to be racist right? Last time I checked you werent in the woods or were you? He wasnt afraid.. a scared person doesnt shoot people in the back hes a coward..

they should televise his lethal injection


get over it

blah Wisconsin doesnt have the death penalty :thumbsdown:

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

You shoot in self-defence

Shooting people in the back is NEVER self defense.

Someone breaks into my house - the intruder first attacks me, and knocks me down. He then goes for my wife. While he's turned around, going towards my wife, I shoot him in the back.

Self-defense? Every day of the week.

 

[OS]

classy,

In the past I thought you were just an inflammatory racially charged ass, but reading through this thread I have a new appreciation for you.

I'm a pretty whitewash asian guy who never particularly paid much attention to racial issues, but it's clear to me in this case race still stacks against even the "ideal minority". I'm not saying this guy is not guilty of murder, but it's kind of appalling some of these posters in here are trying to pass off racially derogatory speech as something that should be tolerated and accepted.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
What's interesting is how some folks here like Classy just automatically assume a group of white guys naturally would have made racial slurs towards Mr. Vang.
That's just as racist as those men would be if they really made racial slurs towards Vang.

Either way, it doesn't matter what they said. He still had no right to kill them, and he certainly had no right to chase them down and shoot them multiple times in the back.

Why can't it be as simple as Vang is crazy?

Edit: Because his credibility isn't too good right now. The survivors have a different story, and they didn't chase anyone down and shoot them in the back.

Man give me a f'in a break. What? You think the guy just wandered in the wodds deer hunting and just for no reason at all shot 8 people killing 6? Let me guess you think the group of white guys baked him some apple pie and were just out there to invite him to have a picnic? I am not even going to go down this road on this one again. People do kill for no reason, but they don't go out the woods where more than likely there is no one out there but them. And the only reason why some of you got your britches all in a bunch is because the dude is asian and the people he killed were white.
Explain this, why would a man who is looking to kill people go into the woods to find people? He was in the woods. So that tells me one thing, that morning the last he was thinking about was killing a bunch of people? Now answer me this, why would he shoot a bunch of people for nothing? We know he ain't crazy, well from psychotic stand point anyway. See the problem here is many of you don't want to admit that the white guys may have and more than likely did something wrong. Instead you make excuses, or say even in the face of racial slurs this man had no right to kill. On the surface that may be true. But what if they truly shot at him as he said? What if he shot the people because he was afraid they would get guns and come after him. Something set off the guy and it damn sure wasn't their hospitality. They did something wrong, but on that day it was the last wrong thing that they would ever do.

You weren't there. Vang was trespassing. Likely they had words. Vang snapped and killed them.
Or Vang was crazy and went looking in a place he knew hunters were.
Or the other hunters all dropped their pants and told Vang to squeal like a pig.

None of that matters.
The only thing that matters is Vang chased them down, and shot 4 of them in the back. He killed 6 of them.
And they were running from him. They weren't chasing him. He wasn't afraid for his life, and even if he was initially, certainly after shooting one or two and actually chasing after them he wasn't.

Why did he do it? Doesn't matter. It'd be interesting to know, certainly. But his position is indefensible, and his attorney pretty much said that.

He was wrong. Again, doesn't matter what they said to him. Doesn't even matter if they shot first.
Chasing unarmed people down and shooting them isn't legal, period.

And you can keep trying to turn it into white vs. asian all you want. You're still 100% wrong.
Doesn't matter what race they were to me. Right is right, wrong is wrong.

I'd even bet that if the 6 that died were black, you'd be talking about how asians are prejudiced towards blacks and Vang obviously we guilty.

And I'd still say that he was wrong because of the same reasons.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Definitely no surprise here, except I am surprised at the reaction of everyone here. ATOT has always been huge fans of vigilante justice and standing up for yourself. When one user posted about how he (nearly?) killed a thief, you all cheered. You thought it was great, even though the thief was exiting the premises and appeared to have no visible weapons or posed any threat. Simply calling the cops was not enough. Take the law into your hands, you all said. Yeah!

Every account of this case has included the survivors testifying that the suspect apologized and was EXITING the area peacefully. But that was not enough. Racial slurs and assault (touched him to grab his hunting license) followed. At least one of them had a gun. Then they called ATV's (loud and menacing in the otherwise quiet woods) to come in. For what? 2-3 big white hunters was not enough? Let's call in the Klan?

After all this and you'd expect them NOT to get shot? Did you expect thim to turn around and get on his knees for some Hmong and Whitey love fest?

Who shot first? They said they never fired a shot. He thought they did. But who cares right? Should he have waited til he was further assaulted before retaliating? He felt endangered for his life by a bunch of bullies. Maybe next time they'll think twice when someone apologizes and was peacefully leaving.

He certainly deserves to go to jail, but don't tell me you don't see how it could have happened.

I was going to post a reply, but you summed it up perfectly. I agree 100%.

The one thing I will add is that it's all but a 100% certainty that they were yelling racial slurs at him, I think that much is clear. It's also clear that he wasn't going up there intending to kill anyone, and had absolutely no criminal past whatsoever. The only logical conclusion is that SOMETHING pushed him over the edge. If they're so fvcking innocent and "didn't deserve this," then why don't they just ask him to leave? I feel bad for all their families.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
What's interesting is how some folks here like Classy just automatically assume a group of white guys naturally would have made racial slurs towards Mr. Vang.
That's just as racist as those men would be if they really made racial slurs towards Vang.

Either way, it doesn't matter what they said. He still had no right to kill them, and he certainly had no right to chase them down and shoot them multiple times in the back.

Why can't it be as simple as Vang is crazy?

Edit: Because his credibility isn't too good right now. The survivors have a different story, and they didn't chase anyone down and shoot them in the back.

Man give me a f'in a break. What? You think the guy just wandered in the wodds deer hunting and just for no reason at all shot 8 people killing 6? Let me guess you think the group of white guys baked him some apple pie and were just out there to invite him to have a picnic? I am not even going to go down this road on this one again. People do kill for no reason, but they don't go out the woods where more than likely there is no one out there but them. And the only reason why some of you got your britches all in a bunch is because the dude is asian and the people he killed were white.
Explain this, why would a man who is looking to kill people go into the woods to find people? He was in the woods. So that tells me one thing, that morning the last he was thinking about was killing a bunch of people? Now answer me this, why would he shoot a bunch of people for nothing? We know he ain't crazy, well from psychotic stand point anyway. See the problem here is many of you don't want to admit that the white guys may have and more than likely did something wrong. Instead you make excuses, or say even in the face of racial slurs this man had no right to kill. On the surface that may be true. But what if they truly shot at him as he said? What if he shot the people because he was afraid they would get guns and come after him. Something set off the guy and it damn sure wasn't their hospitality. They did something wrong, but on that day it was the last wrong thing that they would ever do.

You weren't there. Vang was trespassing. Likely they had words. Vang snapped and killed them.
Or Vang was crazy and went looking in a place he knew hunters were.
Or the other hunters all dropped their pants and told Vang to squeal like a pig.

None of that matters.
The only thing that matters is Vang chased them down, and shot 4 of them in the back. He killed 6 of them.
And they were running from him. They weren't chasing him. He wasn't afraid for his life, and even if he was initially, certainly after shooting one or two and actually chasing after them he wasn't.

Why did he do it? Doesn't matter. It'd be interesting to know, certainly. But his position is indefensible, and his attorney pretty much said that.

He was wrong. Again, doesn't matter what they said to him. Doesn't even matter if they shot first.
Chasing unarmed people down and shooting them isn't legal, period.

And you can keep trying to turn it into white vs. asian all you want. You're still 100% wrong.
Doesn't matter what race they were to me. Right is right, wrong is wrong.

I'd even bet that if the 6 that died were black, you'd be talking about how asians are prejudiced towards blacks and Vang obviously we guilty.

And I'd still say that he was wrong because of the same reasons.

You need to stop beating a dead horse. I didn't see one person in here who seriously justified that those six men needed to die. What they ARE saying if they had even a little bit of tact, all six of them would probably still be alive.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
No matter what his fvcking story is. It doesnt matter, he committed murder by fact he shot multiple people in the fvcking BACK. That is NOT self defense.

Exactly.

All the rest of the story is irrelevant. Who said what. Who shot first. What race all involved were.

Completely and totally irrelevant.

All that matters is that Vang, for whatever reason, snapped and killed 6 men, and they were unarmed. He shot them in the back, at least one several times.

That isn't self-defense, in no situation ever will that be self-defense, and it doesn't matter if he's asian, black, or martian.

Right is right, wrong is wrong, and guilty is guilty.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: OS
You need to stop beating a dead horse. I didn't see one person in here who seriously justified that those six men needed to die. What they ARE saying if they had even a little bit of tact, all six of them would probably still be alive.

And YOU need to re-read what I was responding to. Classy is saying that the other guys were probably at fault, and he is saying that the only reason all the people who are saying it's an open and shut case are doing so because we are all white and the killer was Asian.

I agree, if some common sense prevailed on all sides, there'd be no killing.

But that is not what I was responding to. I am merely saying that I don't care what race any of them were/are.
And I've repeated it several times in hopes that dense folks would get that.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: digitalsm
No matter what his fvcking story is. It doesnt matter, he committed murder by fact he shot multiple people in the fvcking BACK. That is NOT self defense.

Exactly.

All the rest of the story is irrelevant. Who said what. Who shot first. What race all involved were.

Completely and totally irrelevant.

All that matters is that Vang, for whatever reason, snapped and killed 6 men, and they were unarmed. He shot them in the back, at least one several times.

That isn't self-defense, in no situation ever will that be self-defense, and it doesn't matter if he's asian, black, or martian.

Right is right, wrong is wrong, and guilty is guilty.

that couldent have been put in a better way