Five hunters killed in Wisconsin woods EDIT: now with PIC

[K1052]

Originally posted by: welst10

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: welst10
This guy is a US Army vet. No wonder he's deadly.

But I don't think he's nuts or crazy. He was most likely provoked with racial slurs. That combined with his poor anger management skills led to the killings. So many people need to learn to control anger.

I agree to an extent. We're not getting the full story here.

I imagine the hunters found the man on "their property" and told him to sternly that he'd have to leave. I am certain that he wasn't asked politely. (Stupid act 1)

There was probably a lot of racial slurs and condescending remarks thrown in his direction, as he left the area, thoroughly embarrassed and upset. (Stupid act 2)

The hunting party were likely having a laugh at his expense.

The shooters anger boiled over and he fired randomly at them. (Stupid act 3)

The gung-ho hunters probably fired back, in an attempt to kill. The situation would have lost control here. (Stupid act 4)

The shooter would have, at this point, started shooting to kill. (Stupid act 4)

Voila. 6 dead people.

Wow. That is a WHOLE lot of assumption.

That's what people do in the process of solving cases and looking for motives, they make reasonable assumptions, then seek facts and eyewitnesses to either approve or exclude the assumptions.

And we have seen all the evidence and talked to all the witnesses right?

What brigden wrote is closer to fiction than a "reasonable assumption".

 

[*kjm]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: *kjm
He also has hunters shooting with one gun.

Only thing I don't like is everyone is assumeing there were racial slurs. In no print I have read has it pointed that way yet. I'll wait for the whole story.

Doesn't matter if there were, it's no license to start shooting.

He was out of line from the minute he set foot on that property. Even if he was completely unaware that he was on private property, when asked to leave his only valid option was to do so. No arguing, no shooting, just pack up & leave.

Viper GTS

Viper I agree... if you look back at my posts I'm with you 100% No matter what went down it comes to the fact he was trespassing. If he thought he had a case on anything he should have taken it to the authorities!

 

[welst10]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: *kjm
He also has hunters shooting with one gun.

Only thing I don't like is everyone is assumeing there were racial slurs. In no print I have read has it pointed that way yet. I'll wait for the whole story.

Doesn't matter if there were, it's no license to start shooting.

He was out of line from the minute he set foot on that property. Even if he was completely unaware that he was on private property, when asked to leave his only valid option was to do so. No arguing, no shooting, just pack up & leave.

Viper GTS

I agree it's no license to kill, but it does matter when they try to find the motive, which is essential in criminal trials. For example, the motive can determine first-degree, second-degree murder, manslaughter.

 

[welst10]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: welst10

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: welst10
This guy is a US Army vet. No wonder he's deadly.

But I don't think he's nuts or crazy. He was most likely provoked with racial slurs. That combined with his poor anger management skills led to the killings. So many people need to learn to control anger.

I agree to an extent. We're not getting the full story here.

I imagine the hunters found the man on "their property" and told him to sternly that he'd have to leave. I am certain that he wasn't asked politely. (Stupid act 1)

There was probably a lot of racial slurs and condescending remarks thrown in his direction, as he left the area, thoroughly embarrassed and upset. (Stupid act 2)

The hunting party were likely having a laugh at his expense.

The shooters anger boiled over and he fired randomly at them. (Stupid act 3)

The gung-ho hunters probably fired back, in an attempt to kill. The situation would have lost control here. (Stupid act 4)

The shooter would have, at this point, started shooting to kill. (Stupid act 4)

Voila. 6 dead people.

Wow. That is a WHOLE lot of assumption.

That's what people do in the process of solving cases and looking for motives, they make reasonable assumptions, then seek facts and eyewitnesses to either approve or exclude the assumptions.

And we have seen all the evidence and talked to all the witnesses right?

What brigden wrote is closer to fiction than a "reasonable assumption".

What he wrote is an assumed scenario that's closest to what really happened.

 

[Farvacola]

Hunter1:Hey billybob, this is my land!
Hunter2:I gonna shoot you! I want this her land!
Hunter1:But you aint got no weapon!
Hunter2:AWWW damn, well ill be seeing ya.
(walks away)
Hunter1: I love hunting them animals, they taste so good!
Hunter2: DIE YOU VARMIT I WANT MY LAND
(Charges and kills everyone with huge gun)

Typical day in the woods for them hicks!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: welst10

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: welst10

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: welst10
This guy is a US Army vet. No wonder he's deadly.

But I don't think he's nuts or crazy. He was most likely provoked with racial slurs. That combined with his poor anger management skills led to the killings. So many people need to learn to control anger.

I agree to an extent. We're not getting the full story here.

I imagine the hunters found the man on "their property" and told him to sternly that he'd have to leave. I am certain that he wasn't asked politely. (Stupid act 1)

There was probably a lot of racial slurs and condescending remarks thrown in his direction, as he left the area, thoroughly embarrassed and upset. (Stupid act 2)

The hunting party were likely having a laugh at his expense.

The shooters anger boiled over and he fired randomly at them. (Stupid act 3)

The gung-ho hunters probably fired back, in an attempt to kill. The situation would have lost control here. (Stupid act 4)

The shooter would have, at this point, started shooting to kill. (Stupid act 4)

Voila. 6 dead people.

Wow. That is a WHOLE lot of assumption.

That's what people do in the process of solving cases and looking for motives, they make reasonable assumptions, then seek facts and eyewitnesses to either approve or exclude the assumptions.

And we have seen all the evidence and talked to all the witnesses right?

What brigden wrote is closer to fiction than a "reasonable assumption".

What he wrote is an assumed scenario that's closest to what really happened.

Everyone who might have seen what actually transpired seems to have been killed by the shooter. Kinda hard to really know what happened, wouldn't you say?

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: welst10

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: *kjm
He also has hunters shooting with one gun.

Only thing I don't like is everyone is assumeing there were racial slurs. In no print I have read has it pointed that way yet. I'll wait for the whole story.

Doesn't matter if there were, it's no license to start shooting.

He was out of line from the minute he set foot on that property. Even if he was completely unaware that he was on private property, when asked to leave his only valid option was to do so. No arguing, no shooting, just pack up & leave.

Viper GTS

I agree it's no license to kill, but it does matter when they try to find the motive, which is essential in criminal trials. For example, the motive can determine first-degree, second-degree murder, manslaughter.

With out a doubt that this is not a third degree.
We don't know the full story, but shooting at 8 people, and one by one taking them down would put it into the very least a non premeditated category. However this sound more like it is a deliberate killing.

 

[*kjm]

Originally posted by: Farvacola
Hunter1:Hey billybob, this is my land!
Hunter2:I gonna shoot you! I want this her land!
Hunter1:But you aint got no weapon!
Hunter2:AWWW damn, well ill be seeing ya.
(walks away)
Hunter1: I love hunting them animals, they taste so good!
Hunter2: DIE YOU VARMIT I WANT MY LAND
(Charges and kills everyone with huge gun)

Typical day in the woods for them hicks!

Wow you must have a ton of time in the woods to know that much info.

 

[welst10]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: welst10

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: *kjm
He also has hunters shooting with one gun.

Only thing I don't like is everyone is assumeing there were racial slurs. In no print I have read has it pointed that way yet. I'll wait for the whole story.

Doesn't matter if there were, it's no license to start shooting.

He was out of line from the minute he set foot on that property. Even if he was completely unaware that he was on private property, when asked to leave his only valid option was to do so. No arguing, no shooting, just pack up & leave.

Viper GTS

I agree it's no license to kill, but it does matter when they try to find the motive, which is essential in criminal trials. For example, the motive can determine first-degree, second-degree murder, manslaughter.

With out a doubt that this is not a third degree.
We don't know the full story, but shooting at 8 people, and one by one taking them down would put it into the very least a non premeditated category. However this sound more like it is a deliberate killing.

Deliberate means careful planning of killing well in advance. Are you saying the guy was waiting in their tree stand just to kill them when they come back?

 

[earthman]

Everybody is making alot of assumptions without knowing or reading the whole story. I doubt if "racial slurs" could be considered sufficient provocation for this incident.

1. All of the people who were shot were unarmed, except one.
2. There is no evidence that any shots were fired at the shooter.
3. Given the location they were shot and the nature of the wounds, the shooter knew he was shooting unarmed people, and he chased and shot some of them more than once.
4. The shooter expended all his ammo and had none when caught.

 

[desy]

Hey K1052
Don't get me wrong I love milsurp and knockoff stuff.
I used to hunt with a $50 303 Brit, still a better choice than an SKS. I'll be buying a Norinco M305 - M14 knockoff maybe two, after I pass my restricted weapons exam and get some handguns first, also from here Toy store!
They have the bargain SKS's too but I want the punch of the 308 round as a bush Moose gun.

I don't care for all the speculation for what set this guy off. Its how we got into the previous arguments of prejudice. Simple facts are he went off and murdered people ruining families including his OWN over a pretty insignificant dispute. I beleive its up to the jury to hear the facts and assign punishment.
As much as people bitch bout lawyers and justice, its one of the significant differences of a democratic culture over so many other failed states.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: desy
Hey K1052
Don't get me wrong I love milsurp and knockoff stuff.
I used to hunt with a $50 303 Brit, still a better choice than an SKS. I'll be buying a Norinco M305 - M14 knockoff maybe two, after I pass my restricted weapons exam and get some handguns first, also from here Toy store!
They have the bargain SKS's too but I want the punch of the 308 round as a bush Moose gun.

I don't care for all the speculation for what set this guy off. Its how we got into the previous arguments of prejudice. Simple facts are he went off and murdered people ruining families including his OWN over a pretty insignificant dispute. I beleive its up to the jury to hear the facts and assign punishment.
As much as people bitch bout lawyers and justice, its one of the significant differences of a democratic culture over so many other failed states.

You SOB, you're a Canadian!:frown:

I've been lusting after the Norinco M14s for so long and we can't get them down here, not at your prices anyway. Damn import restrictions.

 

[PCmaker]

Originally posted by: earthman
Everybody is making alot of assumptions without knowing or reading the whole story. I doubt if "racial slurs" could be considered sufficient provocation for this incident.

1. All of the people who were shot were unarmed, except one.
2. There is no evidence that any shots were fired at the shooter.
3. Given the location they were shot and the nature of the wounds, the shooter knew he was shooting unarmed people, and he chased and shot some of them more than once.
4. The shooter expended all his ammo and had none when caught.

I back you on that one. May be the little hmong guy got afraid and defended himself, we shall hear both side of the story

 

[welst10]

Originally posted by: PCmaker

Originally posted by: earthman
Everybody is making alot of assumptions without knowing or reading the whole story. I doubt if "racial slurs" could be considered sufficient provocation for this incident.

1. All of the people who were shot were unarmed, except one.
2. There is no evidence that any shots were fired at the shooter.
3. Given the location they were shot and the nature of the wounds, the shooter knew he was shooting unarmed people, and he chased and shot some of them more than once.
4. The shooter expended all his ammo and had none when caught.

I back you on that one. May be the little hmong guy got afraid and defended himself, we shall hear both side of the story

PCmaker? didn't I sell you a Windows XP cd a long time ago? how does that work out for you?

 

[OffTopic1]

Deliberate means careful planning of killing well in advance. Are you saying the guy was waiting in their tree stand just to kill them when they come back?

The court will be the place that determines this senseless crime. However, I think Vang have plenty of time to pre-meditate his plan, because it took time to go away and then come back to kill. Also, taking time to take down 8 human beings in a rage indicated that he has ample of time to think about his action.

 

[*kjm]

Originally posted by: earthman
Everybody is making alot of assumptions without knowing or reading the whole story. I doubt if "racial slurs" could be considered sufficient provocation for this incident.

1. All of the people who were shot were unarmed, except one.
2. There is no evidence that any shots were fired at the shooter.
3. Given the location they were shot and the nature of the wounds, the shooter knew he was shooting unarmed people, and he chased and shot some of them more than once.
4. The shooter expended all his ammo and had none when caught.

5. When he saw other hunters (the two that lead him out) he was calm and said nothing of the shootings only that he was lost!

He didn't give two craps about the people.

 

[fenrir]

Originally posted by: PCmaker

Originally posted by: earthman
Everybody is making alot of assumptions without knowing or reading the whole story. I doubt if "racial slurs" could be considered sufficient provocation for this incident.

1. All of the people who were shot were unarmed, except one.
2. There is no evidence that any shots were fired at the shooter.
3. Given the location they were shot and the nature of the wounds, the shooter knew he was shooting unarmed people, and he chased and shot some of them more than once.
4. The shooter expended all his ammo and had none when caught.

I back you on that one. May be the little hmong guy got afraid and defended himself, we shall hear both side of the story

Defended himself?? DId you read anything in this thread? Shooting unarmed people is not defending yourself.

Matt

 

[welst10]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Deliberate means careful planning of killing well in advance. Are you saying the guy was waiting in their tree stand just to kill them when they come back?

The court will be the place that determines this senseless crime. However, I think Vang have plenty of time to pre-meditate his plan, because it took time to go away and then come back to kill. Also, taking time to take down 8 human beings in a rage indicated that he has ample of time to think about his action.

You're talking planning minutes in advance. I doubt that classifies as deliberate. If he had planned this days in advance, that's a different matter. But all reports citing sheriff's words indicate he was "apparently lost" and entered a private land.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: earthman
Everybody is making alot of assumptions without knowing or reading the whole story. I doubt if "racial slurs" could be considered sufficient provocation for this incident.

1. All of the people who were shot were unarmed, except one.
2. There is no evidence that any shots were fired at the shooter.
3. Given the location they were shot and the nature of the wounds, the shooter knew he was shooting unarmed people, and he chased and shot some of them more than once.
4. The shooter expended all his ammo and had none when caught.

well, according to the suspect, he was called a racial slur...and was shot upon first..
enough to make him snap i guess =)

link

 

[desy]

I figured thats what he'd say and maybe thats what happened.
Like I said before all the speculation , something for the lawyers to figure out 🙁
Too many bodies over something sooo stupid

 

[K1052]

Predictable response.

Have to see what the forensics turn up to really know WTF happened.

 

[welst10]

<<A hunter approached and told Vang he was on private property, and Vang started to leave as other hunters approached, the statement said. Vang said the hunters surrounded him and some called him racial slurs.


Vang said he started walking away but looked back to see the first hunter point his rifle at him and then fire a shot that hit the ground 30 to 40 feet behind him, the statement said.


Vang told investigators that's when he started firing at the group, according to the statement.>>


Holy crap, if that's what really happened, I don't feel slight sympathy towards those dead hunters.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: welst10
<<A hunter approached and told Vang he was on private property, and Vang started to leave as other hunters approached, the statement said. Vang said the hunters surrounded him and some called him racial slurs.


Vang said he started walking away but looked back to see the first hunter point his rifle at him and then fire a shot that hit the ground 30 to 40 feet behind him, the statement said.


Vang told investigators that's when he started firing at the group, according to the statement.>>


Holy crap, if that's what really happened, I don't feel slight sympathy towards those dead hunters.

Yeah, because the other seven people that he shot that weren't carrying guns obviously deserved it :roll:

And that is assuming his story is true.

 

[noto12ious]

"Yeah, because the other seven people that he shot that weren't carrying guns obviously deserved it "

"some called him racial slurs"

psycho killer in prison, racists dead, win / win.

 

[LongAce]

Assuming that what he said is true... People surrounding you,calling you racail slurs and then shot at you while you're walking away... Won't that be in self defense?