|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:40:59 -0500, "Gary Warner"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On 23 Nov 2004 22:48:08 -0800, (steve) wrote: Well, if I were facing multiple counts of murder, I'd try to kick up some dust in an attempt to save my butt. It's just human nature. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the "racial persecution" angle was used as a potential defense. It also wouldn't be the first time a group of one race tried to intimidate a lone-person of another. But even if true, shooting people is not the appropriate response, unless his life was directly threatened. If he could somehow prove that he was shot at first, I'd tend to look a little more sympathetic toward him. But how can the guy proove he was shot at first? Maybe they'll find a bullet from the other's gun? Or maybe they'll be able to show one of those guns was fired recently? But they were, after all, out hunting. Wouldn't be totally out of the question for them to claim (or actually) to have shot their riffels recently in that area. And such is the nature of the conundrum. The defense will claim that he was shot first, but will not be able to prove it. It then boils down to a case of he said, vs. he said. There are more witnesses on the side of the hunters, but when playing race card, they expect that to trump other conflicting testimony, even if it's true. Sorry about the cynicism..... Dave |
Vang said he started walking away and saw the man with the rifle take it off his shoulder. Vang said he looked back again, when he was about 100 feet from the group, and the armed man was pointing the rifle at him. Then, Vang said, he dropped to a a crouch position and the man fired a shot at him, hitting the ground 30 to 40 feet behind Vang. Vang said he took off the scope of his SKS semi-automatic rifle and fired two shots at the armed man, who dropped. I'm not a hunter, but this last sentence in Vang's statement seems a bit incredible to me. If, in fact, you were being fired upon at relatively close range without benefit of cover, and feared for your life, would you really take the time to remove the scope from your rifle before returning fire? I don't believe I would, unless there's some reason that the scope would prevent successfully returning fire that I'm not aware of. To me, this part of Vang's statement brings serious doubt to his claim of being fired upon first. |
"by his own
words, he chased down one man and shot him in the back. IMO, it would be difficult to plead self-defense on that." Yes and that's why I believe Vang is telling the truth about the slurs and who shot first. He's too honest for his own good. |
[snip]
The other unarmed hunters ran and Vang fired, with two or three men dropping, he said. Two other men ran toward the cabin, about a quarter-mile away, and Vang said he chased one, who was yelling, "Help me. Help me." Vang said he got within 20 feet and shot the man in the back. .... shot a fleeing man in the back .... [snip] Vang ran back to the original shooting scene, saw one of the victims standing and said, "You're not dead yet?" and fired one more shot. .... shot a dying, helpless man ... [snip] I hope he will rot in hell. Matt |
|
Seems you think the guy who did the shootings is a crazy man
and a murdering nut job. But, what if he was shot at first? If he was shot at first: The guy crossed the line after the original firefight where he killed a couple of folks. The surviving hunters fled, and if one account is accurate one guy (who probably peed himself) was running down a trail calling "help, help!" when the nut job chased him down and shot him in the back. Not exactly self defense. We had a similar case up this way a couple of years ago. Some kid stole a car out of a guy's driveway. The guy woke up in time to see the kid take off down the road, so he grabbed a pistol, jumped into his other car, and gave chase. After tracking his stolen car for a few miles, the auto owner pulled up along side and shot the car thief through the side of the head. There was a lot of discussion that the auto owner was "defending his property" and therefore justified in murdering the thieving juvenile. Makes about as much sense, to me, as declaring "self defense" when the attacker is running away and you have to chase him down in order to kill him. What would you do if a group of people with guns were around you and one took a pot shot at your feet or something? Would you just run hoping they didn't shoot you? 'cause if they did shoot you, who would tell your side to the cops? Or would you fire back? I don't think anybody can accurately say what they would do in a hypothetical situation where other people are shooting, but I'd like to think that if I dove for cover, fired back, ran like hell, or otherwise kept my butt intact I wouldn't chase people down to shoot them in the back. |
I always said give the deer a gun to shoot back. Obvious where the odds
would lie. Al Cummmings, who wrote a bunch of cruising guidebooks years ago, once worked as a radio DJ in Seattle. One year, on the opening day of deer season, he put on a hollowed out trophy head and stood next to one of our busy arterials with a rifle, pretending to take aim at passing motorists. In the 60's this was funny. Somebody would gun him down or call the Homeland Security forces on him these days. |
Didn't some Vietnam war hero do the same thing?
John H Thousands did. In a war, you shoot at the enemy until he dies or surrenders, not just until he turns his back on you. |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... I always said give the deer a gun to shoot back. Obvious where the odds would lie. Al Cummmings, who wrote a bunch of cruising guidebooks years ago, once worked as a radio DJ in Seattle. One year, on the opening day of deer season, he put on a hollowed out trophy head and stood next to one of our busy arterials with a rifle, pretending to take aim at passing motorists. In the 60's this was funny. Somebody would gun him down or call the Homeland Security forces on him these days. Wow! Up here the police put out deer & moose silhouettes trying to entice poachers to take a shot. They get takers each year. |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:32:59 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:37:55 -0500, "Gary Warner" wrote: Who do I believe / What do I believe happened? It's certainly possible that the Hmong man just snapped after being nicely or even crudely/rudely asked to leave. But it seems more likely to me that a man would have to be provoked pretty well to take up shooting other men. We have a Hmong population in the local area and it's not unknown for somebody to ask, for instance, to move a car and get assaulted in return. It is a cultural issue and I'm not at all sure what causes it. Means nothing. We have a white population in this country who would string up a black man for looking at a white woman, and recently we had some white men in Texas who hooked a black guy up to their truck with a chain and dragged him to death. And there are prominent black religious leaders who have children out of wedlock, form tax free groups that distribute cocaine, incite riots in which Jewish and Korean innocents are killed and swear false witness against innocent people ruining reputations and careers. And those two particular individuals are from blue states. What's your point? My point was there is a cultural divide between different ethnic groups and we need to bridge that somehow - not increase the tension by blaming any one particular group. I'm not interested in any finger pointing discussion with you or anybody else. All the best, Tom -------------- "What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup... is there a computer terminal in the day room of some looney bin somewhere?" Bilgeman - circa 2004 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com