Statement of Chai Vang(Hunter who killed 6)

[desy]

he knows he is done for so IMO there is no reason to lie anymore

Uhhmm No, there is a big difference on who started it, the rest doesn't matter

Hunters just don't fire at each other, even if it was just to be warning him off. . .
He may have unslung his rifle, so what?

The dirt flew up BEHIND Vang as he dropped down he said, which means the first shot was intended to kill Vang not warn him off? Sorry not buying it, not over get the f outa my tree stand, chnk! incident.
'Words' were exchanged
Vang shoulda just sucked it up, APOLOGIZED even if they were treating him like sh1t, turned and walked back to from where he came.

 

[Phoenix86]

Facts I don't see anyone arguing.

A. Vang was tresspassing.
B. Vang killed unarmed people who were fleeing the area. These people at best *may* have verbally insulted him, possible with racial slurs.Intentions about what they could/would have done after they fled are not excuses to kill.
C. Vang killed 2 unarmed people who were investigating, who were not even aware what was happening (truely innocent).

In Texas, the hunters could have shot Vang dead for tresspassing. Just want everyone to think about that when you blow off the whole property rights thing... I have no idea what the laws are in WI for that.

 

[vood0g]

Originally posted by: kage69
I'm sorry, but I don't buy Vang's story at all. I really have trouble believing someone would insult and throw racial slurs at someone who IS PACKING A FRIGGING ASSAULT RIFLE!

He's been a US resident and hunting long enough to be aware of land ownership rules, and he also has a past with the law concerning domestic disputes with his wife. I think he has anger issues, and didn't like being told where he can't hunt. Seeing as the anglo community in the area has complained about the lack of respect the Hmoung population shows towards land ownership, I can see one of the hunters not being sugar sweet with his demand for Vang to vacate the premises. To a person with a severe temper, that may have been enough to ignite the situation. Let's face it people, he shot a teen and a woman, both unarmed. There is no insult in any lexicon that justifies that.

why would they be scared for? there are 6 of them there. like i said, they just picked on the wrong person. most of us are rational enough not to shoot people over verbal insults, but there are some who arent. unfortunately for those hunters, vang isnt the rational type. end of story.

 

[moomoo40moo]

My friend was hunting around the same area that happened. He heard all of the shots, and everyone yelling. I thought that was pretty crazy when I heard that. If Vang would have been closer to my friend, there is a good chance that my friend could have been killed.

Anyway, I think Vang should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. If I was 'lost', and I walked into some elses land, and then all of a sudden, I am confronted by a group of asians calling me racial slurs or whatever, I would be like, "ok, whatever, just give me a phone or a ride back if you could please" I do not buy the part about the other people firing first at all. What would be their reasoning. The only reason would be if Vang was doing something that was threating their lives, which I doubt. I wish we had the death penalty for reasons like this. Who savagely(sp?) kills unarmed men, and especially women?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Facts I don't see anyone arguing.

A. Vang was tresspassing.
B. Vang killed unarmed people who were fleeing the area. These people at best *may* have verbally insulted him, possible with racial slurs.Intentions about what they could/would have done after they fled are not excuses to kill.
C. Vang killed 2 unarmed people who were investigating, who were not even aware what was happening (truely innocent).

In Texas, the hunters could have shot Vang dead for tresspassing. Just want everyone to think about that when you blow off the whole property rights thing... I have no idea what the laws are in WI for that.

Well thats not surprising, considering there are only two things that come from Texas....................

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Facts I don't see anyone arguing.

A. Vang was tresspassing.
B. Vang killed unarmed people who were fleeing the area. These people at best *may* have verbally insulted him, possible with racial slurs.Intentions about what they could/would have done after they fled are not excuses to kill.
C. Vang killed 2 unarmed people who were investigating, who were not even aware what was happening (truely innocent).

In Texas, the hunters could have shot Vang dead for tresspassing. Just want everyone to think about that when you blow off the whole property rights thing... I have no idea what the laws are in WI for that.

Well thats not surprising, considering there are only two things that come from Texas....................

Classy and witty, your parents must be proud.

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Facts I don't see anyone arguing.

A. Vang was tresspassing.
B. Vang killed unarmed people who were fleeing the area. These people at best *may* have verbally insulted him, possible with racial slurs.Intentions about what they could/would have done after they fled are not excuses to kill.
C. Vang killed 2 unarmed people who were investigating, who were not even aware what was happening (truely innocent).

In Texas, the hunters could have shot Vang dead for tresspassing. Just want everyone to think about that when you blow off the whole property rights thing... I have no idea what the laws are in WI for that.

Well thats not surprising, considering there are only two things that come from Texas....................

So you're going to turn this into a gay bashing thread? Real nice classy. But I guess you're black, so you can get away with bashing other minorities, eh?

 

[Yax]

As long as everyone who don't believe his story agrees that this is the act of one man, not a certain minority group (like the media likes to portray) its all good.

When you start saying things like: "Save a deer, kill a Hmong" then we've got problems.

And why is it that this thread is still getting so much attention when that other thread, where that lady ran over those kids with her SUV died off so quickly? Could it be that no one's interested because she's not asian? And what were those kids names again? Jamal? and.. were they white kids or black? Hmm. could that be another reason why that's not news worthy and Vang's case is?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Yax
As long as everyone who don't believe his story agrees that this is the act of one man, not a certain minority group (like the media likes to portray) its all good.

When you start saying things like: "Save a deer, kill a Hmong" then we've got problems.

And why is it that this thread is still getting so much attention when that other thread, where that lady ran over those kids with her SUV died off so quickly? Could it be that no one's interested because she's not asian? And what were those kids names again? Jamal? and.. were they white kids or black? Hmm. could that be another reason why that's not news worthy and Vang's case is?

naa its not because they were black. Its because you do not have an idiot like classy who is defending him.

If someone was defending the actions of that lady then that thread would be huge also. But everyone agreed she should be punished severly.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Facts I don't see anyone arguing.

A. Vang was tresspassing.
B. Vang killed unarmed people who were fleeing the area. These people at best *may* have verbally insulted him, possible with racial slurs.Intentions about what they could/would have done after they fled are not excuses to kill.
C. Vang killed 2 unarmed people who were investigating, who were not even aware what was happening (truely innocent).

In Texas, the hunters could have shot Vang dead for tresspassing. Just want everyone to think about that when you blow off the whole property rights thing... I have no idea what the laws are in WI for that.

Well thats not surprising, considering there are only two things that come from Texas....................

So you're going to turn this into a gay bashing thread? Real nice classy. But I guess you're black, so you can get away with bashing other minorities, eh?

I just laugh at these dumb@ss comments. It was a joke, a harmless joke. There are literally dozens of black bashing threads posted over the years here. It ain't even funny. Its amazing that lowlifes like you can point out when I introduce color or race but I don't think I ever remember your ass in any thread defending the abuse of blacks or any other minority who is being attacked wrongfully in some of the many threads. You can go bleep yourself.

 

[classy]

And another thing damn it. My opinion ain't no different than anyone else's in this thread. No one was there, no one. So all anyone can do is, is read the statements and form an opinion. I have chosen to believe the Vang guy side on how this got started. I never said everything he did was right, but it is absolutely ridiculous to believe these folks were just innocent victims, give me a freaking break with that bs. They did something and it wasn't offering to give the guy a ride home either. Its amazing how most of you just, for whatever reason (wonder what that could be :roll: ) don't believe they shot at the guy first. Now if it comes out he admits to killing them then he should definately be put to death if its allowable. But if he stands by his story, then how this got started was the dead folks fault. I mean its not like its there's no way in hell they could have possibly hurled racial stuff and took a shot at the guy. I mean there's no way a group of whites have ever done something like that. Dear God I mean that would be blasphemous. :roll:

 

[Gamingphreek]

This is one of those very touchy and hard to express topics.

As a Christian no one, NO ONE has the right to take another huuman beings life (Gov't aside but thats a whole nother topic).

I believe that Vang was extremely wrong and should get either Life without Parol or Death Sentence.

If the hunters did what Vang stated that doesn't justify what Vang did (2 wrongs dont make a right), however that COULD have been what started everything.

Whatever your thoughts on this i think it would be a VERY wise idea to put all thoughts on the matter aside and respect those who did die.

Anyways i believe that Vang is NOT telling the truth, but that is just my opinion.

-Kevin

 

[Phokus]

Apparently the mods completely missed this thread.

 

[kage69]

why would they be scared for? there are 6 of them there. like i said, they just picked on the wrong person. most of us are rational enough not to shoot people over verbal insults, but there are some who arent. unfortunately for those hunters, vang isnt the rational type. end of story.

Scared? Well I'm sure people got scared once bullets started flying and bodies starting dropping, but what I'm refering to is what kind of person strolls up to a stranger (who happens to holding a loaded, menacing-looking assault rifle) and begins berating them with racial slurs? If there was some strange redneck-looking guy standing in your backyard holding an AR-15 would you walk up and commence with the hillbilly remarks? Somehow, I doubt it.
As to the numbers of those involved, it's not like all 6 people were armed, and let's be frank here - a loaded SKS, while restrained to semi-auto by law, still packs enough ammo to deal with more than 6 people, and even someone unfamiliar with combat arms would realize that just by looking at it.
They didn't pick the wrong person at all. Vang was the one who made the wrong decision, that being hunting from a treestand he didn't erect, on land he didn't own. It is the right of any landowner to ask the uninvited to leave. I seriously doubt racial slurs were used towards Vang, as do I doubt he fired only after being fired upon. I do agree he isn't the rational type, but no, this isn't the end of the story.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Me thinks that it is not wise to call an armed hunter a "beloved patriot" to his face. He deserves to fry, but the other hunters should shoulder some of the blame, as well.

Doesn't matter one bit.

Someone could call me every name under the sun, but that still doesn't give me the right to start blazing away at them with a semi-auto rifle.

Or even to punch them in the nose.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: leeland

Originally posted by: classy
You can moan and groan, cry and complain. Those men started some stuff with that boy and he ended it. He was walking away. Nothing else needed to be said or done. But like a bunch of redneck white boys, they thought they could scare the little asian guy. Well now they are taking a dirt nap. Its 2005 and folks ain't taking no more of the bully sh!t. Send those poor bastards some roses. Cause they got what they were looking for. They should have just let the man go and they couldn't that, so they paid for it with their lives. Now cry them a F'in river.

Or better yet...the slant eye could have been hunting on his 50 acres of land in minnesota...or better yet...he could have been back in SE Asia where they came from....

Motion to BAN :thumbsdown:

Your ignorance and racism is showing.