Chai Vang guilty on all 6 counts...

[KingofCamelot]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Mucho
Anyone who were ever a victim of racism would have seen this quite differently, an all white jury did not help his case one bit.

Suffering from racism does not allow someone to commit murder.

In some cases it does. Its called self defense. In many cases where racism is being comitted the victim is killed.

Nice way to spin that one. He was quiet clearly talking about verbal racism, so of course you bring up violent assaults that involve racisim.

As far as I see it, its fairly simple. Guy got called racist terms (questionable), goes crazy, and kills 6 people. How can anyone claim that racist terms justify that?

Oh I see, if I and my family are out and you and couple of your flunkys start slinging racial stuff at us and I break off lil something I am the bad guy. Hey try this on for size, just stfu and keep comments to yourself or spew it the privacy of your own home and maybe your punk @ss won't end up in the hospital or worse.
See you're just the kind of jack@ss I am talking about, nobody has to take physical or verbal abuse. Its that kind of thinking more than likely is why 6 bodies are now ice cold. You don't have the right under any circumstances to abuse any minority verbally and think its ok.
Boy please

So now verbal abuse justifies multiple counts of murder? Do you even listen to the nonsense you spew?

If we were to follow your philosophy of killing everyone that makes us cry, we would have one very lonely person in the world.

Does this also mean that a father is justified in killing a 6-year-old who called his son a racist term?

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: PG
Almost every single thing you said is wrong. I don't even know where to start for sure, but I'll give it a shot:
- every account said he was leaving peacefully? prove this statement
- racial slurs? again, prove this, some witnesses say this isn't true
- touched him? ...., again where is the proof? never heard this one before, I think you made it up
- at least one had a gun? yes, one of them, but that was all they found
- called ATV's? wrong, one ATV came and it was because the people getting shot called for help. The unarmed people on the ATV who came to help out got shot and killed
- was peacefully leaving? Bullsh!t, he shot most of them in the back.

umm, from one of the articles it says the two of the witness basically collaborated with that story, other than shooting first, which probably did not happen, or it was a warning shot. link

also, come on you think this guy just decided to start shooting people, without any harrassment? that's ludicrous.

I think what happened was, they started harassing him, he got scared. he starts walking away. an atv with more people pulls up to see what's going on. again more harrassment. then one decides to point his rifle at the man. he thinks he's being shot at. he returns fire. others closer to him, start running. some of them go to the back of the atv for cover. at this point, he's just going beserk and shooting everyone, he's scared for his life. also, he has had military training. he's obviously not thinking that, hey if this person's back is turned to me, they're not a threat.

imo, if he had johnny cochran, it would've been a lesser charge of murder.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
So now verbal abuse justifies multiple counts of murder? If we were to follow your philosophy of killing everyone that makes us cry, we would have one very lonely person in the world.

you're misinterpreting what happened. the effect of the racism was intimidation, it was not simply hurtful. the person felt the intimidation was big enough that his life was in danger and responded in kind.

Do you even listen to the nonsense you spew?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

So now verbal abuse justifies multiple counts of murder? Do you even listen to the nonsense you spew?

If we were to follow your philosophy of killing everyone that makes us cry, we would have one very lonely person in the world.

Does this also mean that a father is justified in killing a 6-year-old who called his son a racist term?

Dude quit with the bull jive. Just say you want to be able to use racial slurs without consequence and just be done with it. Sheesh...... And I bet any amount of money if it had been a reverse situation and the dude was white and the dead people were minorities and he had the same story, it probably would have been a mistrial :thumbsdown:

 

[KingofCamelot]

Originally posted by: da loser

Originally posted by: PG
Almost every single thing you said is wrong. I don't even know where to start for sure, but I'll give it a shot:
- every account said he was leaving peacefully? prove this statement
- racial slurs? again, prove this, some witnesses say this isn't true
- touched him? ...., again where is the proof? never heard this one before, I think you made it up
- at least one had a gun? yes, one of them, but that was all they found
- called ATV's? wrong, one ATV came and it was because the people getting shot called for help. The unarmed people on the ATV who came to help out got shot and killed
- was peacefully leaving? Bullsh!t, he shot most of them in the back.

umm, from one of the articles it says the two of the witness basically collaborated with that story, other than shooting first, which probably did not happen, or it was a warning shot. link

also, come on you think this guy just decided to start shooting people, without any harrassment? that's ludicrous.

I think what happened was, they started harassing him, he got scared. he starts walking away. an atv with more people pulls up to see what's going on. again more harrassment. then one decides to point his rifle at the man. he thinks he's being shot at. he returns fire. others closer to him, start running. some of them go to the back of the atv for cover. at this point, he's just going beserk and shooting everyone, he's scared for his life. also, he has had military training. he's obviously not thinking that, hey if this person's back is turned to me, they're not a threat.

imo, if he had johnny cochran, it would've been a lesser charge of murder.

I would hope anyone with common sense would see he was excessive. If someone did fire at him first or point a rifle in a firing position at him, then I would assume he was justified in taking that person out as a percieved threat. Only problem is he threw justifiable homicide out the window when he mowed down the other 5 unarmed people who were fleeing.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: da loser

also, come on you think this guy just decided to start shooting people, without any harrassment? that's ludicrous.

See to many of the peanut gallery on this board only minorities do stuff unprovoked. But if they are white there seems like there is always some "reasonable explanation" for the "misunderstanding".

 

[KingofCamelot]

Originally posted by: da loser

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
So now verbal abuse justifies multiple counts of murder? If we were to follow your philosophy of killing everyone that makes us cry, we would have one very lonely person in the world.

you're misinterpreting what happened. the effect of the racism was intimidation, it was not simply hurtful. the person felt the intimidation was big enough that his life was in danger and responded in kind.

Do you even listen to the nonsense you spew?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_defense_and_defense_of_others

It has been generally held by most courts, as well as prescribed by statute law, that the degree of violence used in self defense must be comparable to the threat faced, so that deadly force should only be used in situations of "extreme" danger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

Pre-emptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another because they suspect the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that they were right.

He got the verdict he deserved.

 

[jpeyton]

Too bad. He had no reason to shoot unless he felt threatened, so killing whitey was justified in this case.

At least he's going to jail knowing he kicked some serious ass. Damn, six guys dead. He probably sawed an entire branch off the Klan family tree.

 

[KingofCamelot]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

So now verbal abuse justifies multiple counts of murder? Do you even listen to the nonsense you spew?

If we were to follow your philosophy of killing everyone that makes us cry, we would have one very lonely person in the world.

Does this also mean that a father is justified in killing a 6-year-old who called his son a racist term?

Dude quit with the bull jive. Just say you want to be able to use racial slurs without consequence and just be done with it. Sheesh...... And I bet any amount of money if it had been a reverse situation and the dude was white and the dead people were minorities and he had the same story, it probably would have been a mistrial :thumbsdown:

And where do you find any evidence that shows I support racisim and racial slurs? All I ever said is that verbal abuse does not justify killing 6 people, several of whom were fleeing. I can not see how his situtation could have been justified by a race reversal.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
Only problem is he threw justifiable homicide out the window when he mowed down the other 5 unarmed people who were fleeing.

well you can imagine after he feared for his life, that it was not clear as day to him. at the time he did not know they were unarmed. so your statement does not reflect his point of view which was reality for him at the time.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

So now verbal abuse justifies multiple counts of murder? Do you even listen to the nonsense you spew?

If we were to follow your philosophy of killing everyone that makes us cry, we would have one very lonely person in the world.

Does this also mean that a father is justified in killing a 6-year-old who called his son a racist term?

Dude quit with the bull jive. Just say you want to be able to use racial slurs without consequence and just be done with it. Sheesh...... And I bet any amount of money if it had been a reverse situation and the dude was white and the dead people were minorities and he had the same story, it probably would have been a mistrial :thumbsdown:

And where do you find any evidence that shows I support racisim and racial slurs? All I ever said is that verbal abuse does not justify killing 6 people, several of whom were fleeing. I can not see how his situtation could have been justified by a race reversal.

Hahaha, of course they were fleeing. The rednecks probably thought they'd ruffle up the FOBs feathers real good. He puts up a fight and they get the hell out of dodge.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

obligitory P&N

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

And where do you find any evidence that shows I support racisim and racial slurs? All I ever said is that verbal abuse does not justify killing 6 people, several of whom were fleeing. I can not see how his situtation could have been justified by a race reversal.

Dude look, no question this guy is a fruit basket, but stop with this he killed 6 innocent people.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_defense_and_defense_of_others

It has been generally held by most courts, as well as prescribed by statute law, that the degree of violence used in self defense must be comparable to the threat faced, so that deadly force should only be used in situations of "extreme" danger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

Pre-emptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another because they suspect the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that they were right.

from that link "Justifiable homicide is a legal grey area, and there is no real legal standard for a homicide to be considered justifiable.

anyway, i'm not arguing he's innocent of the murder. I'm arguing that it's not an open and shut case, that this guy decided to kill 6 people in cold blood without provocation.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: classyYou don't have the right under any circumstances to abuse any minority verbally and think its ok.
Boy please

Nobody said it was okay, but the the minority that gets abused verbally also has no right to kill the verbal abusers, ever.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Wow, no fvkcing sh!t? Big surprise there...nutjob goes whacko and shoots a bunch of fleeing hunters. I'm surprised it took this long...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: jamerdean

Originally posted by: weirdichi
Didn't surprise me one bit. Sad day for the Hmong community in that for every positive step we take, there's always some negativity to bring us back. Hopefully everybody can learn from this.

lesson 1 - dont miss
lesson 2 - dont wound
lesson 3 - no witnesses

Lesson 0.5 - Don't be a fvkcing dumbass and don't shoot people just because they are giving you a hard time.

 

[rh71]

I would have so loved to see a role reversal (minority vs. whites) and read the responses from some of you then. I bet some brief responses would turn into verbose mode.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I want some of you guys on my jury if I'm ever charged with a capital crime...

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

So now verbal abuse justifies multiple counts of murder? Do you even listen to the nonsense you spew?

If we were to follow your philosophy of killing everyone that makes us cry, we would have one very lonely person in the world.

Does this also mean that a father is justified in killing a 6-year-old who called his son a racist term?

Dude quit with the bull jive. Just say you want to be able to use racial slurs without consequence and just be done with it.

What an idiotic statement.
So what if the hunters just called the guy a f@#king asshole instead of a racial slur?
How is there a difference?
I fully expect that if I go into a place full of black people and start using the N-word, I'm pretty much looking for an ass-beating.
So I don't do stuff like that. And if I'm in that same place and the black people start calling me names, chances are I'm leaving, because I know when I'm outnumbered.
Just like the place full of blacks would know that, too.

This situation is no different. If you are out somewhere, and someone calls you a name, and there are a lot of them, you flip them off and leave.
You don't go get your gun and shoot them. Period, end of story. I don't care if you're with your family or not. You just don't do it.

No name anyone can call you enables you to murder them. Ever. The rest of the situation doesn't matter.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Are they still investigating to see if he was involved with the killings of the other hunters in that same area a year or two ago?

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hahaha, of course they were fleeing. The rednecks probably thought they'd ruffle up the FOBs feathers real good. He puts up a fight and they get the hell out of dodge.

I have to agree with this statement. Some whiteys, especially rednecks down here, think they are badasses and they can pick on Asians without any consequences. While I don't think what that guy did was right <he shouldn't shoot the ones in the back> but I bet from now on, whiteys in that area will think twice before they pick on Asians again.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hahaha, of course they were fleeing. The rednecks probably thought they'd ruffle up the FOBs feathers real good. He puts up a fight and they get the hell out of dodge.

I have to agree with this statement. Some whiteys, especially rednecks down here, think they are badasses and they can pick on Asians without any consequences. While I don't think what that guy did was right <he shouldn't shoot the ones in the back> but I bet from now on, whiteys in that area will think twice before they pick on Asians again.

*shoots Svnla in the back for referring to caucasians as whiteys.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hahaha, of course they were fleeing. The rednecks probably thought they'd ruffle up the FOBs feathers real good. He puts up a fight and they get the hell out of dodge.

I have to agree with this statement. Some whiteys, especially rednecks down here, think they are badasses and they can pick on Asians without any consequences. While I don't think what that guy did was right <he shouldn't shoot the ones in the back> but I bet from now on, whiteys in that area will think twice before they pick on Asians again.

Yeah, probably true...hell of a way to set a precedent though.

 

[KingofCamelot]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot

And where do you find any evidence that shows I support racisim and racial slurs? All I ever said is that verbal abuse does not justify killing 6 people, several of whom were fleeing. I can not see how his situtation could have been justified by a race reversal.

Dude look, no question this guy is a fruit basket, but stop with this he killed 6 innocent people.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said they were innocent. Going with what I know about the case I mentioned unarmed and fleeing. Someone that is unarmed a fleeing can be guilty. I do not see justification to shoot unarmed fleeing people, even if they were criminals. I think we agree that the guy was crazy, and that he killed 6 people. I don't want to continue arguing, because all it will do is take up server space.

Originally posted by: da loser

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_defense_and_defense_of_others

It has been generally held by most courts, as well as prescribed by statute law, that the degree of violence used in self defense must be comparable to the threat faced, so that deadly force should only be used in situations of "extreme" danger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

Pre-emptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another because they suspect the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that they were right.

from that link "Justifiable homicide is a legal grey area, and there is no real legal standard for a homicide to be considered justifiable.

anyway, i'm not arguing he's innocent of the murder. I'm arguing that it's not an open and shut case, that this guy decided to kill 6 people in cold blood without provocation.

I'm going to have to disagree, I feel it is pretty much an open and shut case. I tend to think that sane people would be able to stop themselves from blowing away a group of people, just because they couldn't stop once they started. I may be more inclined that he got over aggressive if they were all right there and he just held down the clip aiming at them. From what I've read it appears to me he took the time to aim. 8 victims, 10-13 bullets fired, one victim shot 4 times in the back, atleast one other victim shot multiple times. 8 + 3 + 1 = 12. Thats some extreme accuracy there. If he had fired many more shtos than he had hit with, I would be more compelled towards him being caught up in the moment. The fact that my math shows he missed only once, or not at all, makes me think he took the time to aim, and was hence not too caught up in the moment to stop himself.


Anyways, like I said above, I feel continuing arguing will just cause this converstation to continue downhill. I'd rather not continue to add fuel to the fire, so I'll stop replying now.