| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
If the 8 were armed they would have executed him and not the other way
around. Matt If the eight were unarmed, how the heck were they "hunting"? Get a bunch of guys staggering around in a beer buzz vs. one sober guy scared for his life. Evens the odds a bit. Then add the factor of some of your buddies getting killed when the intended victim of a cruel "joke" takes the shot seriously and begins firing back. If you aren't prepared to see people going down on both sides of you and you panic as a result, the odds are evened a bit more. All those missing weapons are likely squirreled away in the bushes someplace. How many people go hunting without a gun? Never heard of anybody doing that, except the stereotypical cheating husband. :-) |
|
|
That part of the report is suspect. The part of the report about five
"hunters" with one gun is very suspect. I feel sorry for those people who got shot and who got killed, especially the ones who had nothing to do with threatening the Hmong who may have felt he was being surrounded "again" by more "reinforcements." If, indeed, he was shot at first, the guy that took that first shot (also first one to be killed) is partially responsible for the deaths of his friends. Sad and tragic. One can look at this as either a case for or against semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. If this was a case of self-defense (initially, that is), then it was deadly unfortunate for the group of hunters to have picked on a single person, armed with a not-even-high-powered weapon, but nevertheless, well armed for the situation. If this was not a case of self-defense, then it was like that lunatic who killed several tourists in Tasmania that resulted in a nationwide ban on semi-autos and pump-actions. "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... The unarmed hunters were coming because they got a radio call that someone had been shot. They were not out hunting when the call came. This according to the newspaper report. "Franko" wrote in message ... Several hunters with only one gun is suspect. Other hunters arriving at the scene supposedly without guns is suspect. Shooting eight, killing six, to defend yourself is suspect. I wonder what others would have done in his shoes: assuming what he stated was true about being surrounded and shot at, alone against a group of at least eight "hunters." "Matt Lang" wrote in message om... (steve) wrote in message . com... Suspect says hunters provoked him Vang says he was surrounded, called names and shot at before shootings By JOHN DIEDRICH, LEE BERGQUIST and TOM HELD Posted: Nov. 23, 2004 Hayward - The suspect arrested for shooting eight hunters, killing six of them, says he was surrounded by the group, called derogatory racial names and shot at before he opened fire, according to court records released today. Northwoods Shootings Suspect Chai Soua Vang, 36, of St. Paul, Minn., is suspected of shooting eight hunters, killing six of them. [massive snip] well a guy with a history of domestic and I even read gun invovled violence masacres 6 people (only ONE armed), some shot in the back. More unarmed people on ATV's arrive, they get executed as well. This isnt self defence. Even if they pulled the racial stuff on him, no reason to execute them all. This guy needs to be locked away for life also to warn people like him. Matt |
What a biased comment. Now we have drunken hunters, that tried to execute a
scared guy. It was early in the morning, as some were traveling in the dark to the deer stand. They find a guy in the stand who does not belong there and accost him. Whether they fired or not, the scared guy shoots a couple. And from the news report. They radio, probably on FRS radios that one of the people has been shot. Several of the "hunters" are still at the cabin and jump in ATV's to help the shot person. They could have assumed it was a hunting accident. They did not bring their guns along, as they were on a recue mission for an injured person. They left the guns at the cabin. They would still be called hunters, as they were at their property to hunt deer, and you would call them hunters even if they were in camp. And nowhere is there any mention of drunkeness. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... If the 8 were armed they would have executed him and not the other way around. Matt If the eight were unarmed, how the heck were they "hunting"? Get a bunch of guys staggering around in a beer buzz vs. one sober guy scared for his life. Evens the odds a bit. Then add the factor of some of your buddies getting killed when the intended victim of a cruel "joke" takes the shot seriously and begins firing back. If you aren't prepared to see people going down on both sides of you and you panic as a result, the odds are evened a bit more. All those missing weapons are likely squirreled away in the bushes someplace. How many people go hunting without a gun? Never heard of anybody doing that, except the stereotypical cheating husband. :-) |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: The unarmed hunters were coming because they got a radio call that someone had been shot. The unarmed hunters... What a great newsgroup this is. Makes more sense than your passed gas thoughts. They would be referred to as hunters, even if they were in camp. You, in your reporter days would have referred to them as hunters. I guess you were as incompetent as a reporter as you are at delivering Democratic party votes. |
"Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: The unarmed hunters were coming because they got a radio call that someone had been shot. The unarmed hunters... What a great newsgroup this is. Makes more sense than your passed gas thoughts. They would be referred to as hunters, even if they were in camp. You, in your reporter days would have referred to them as hunters. I guess you were as incompetent as a reporter as you are at delivering Democratic party votes. real fishy here. some one got shot... call his hunter friends whho kjnew thhat some got shot... and thhose hhunters came running withh no gun in thheir hands... in thhe middle of the wood, deer hunting? where are all the guns? do they have gun? Or do they play smart to get that guy by telloing police that they are unarmed? Real fisshy here... rudolf |
"Matt Lang" wrote in message om... The guy takes off and maybe someone fired a shot or even close to him (no doubt wrong but NOT cold blooded murder). Then the guy with the violence history snaps and takes them all down with his semi auto (why the **** is he hunting with an assault weapon???? Isnt that one against him?). shots in the back, dying people finished and all. Can you provide the definition of an assault weapon? I keep hearing the term "military style assault weapon" in the media and by gun control proponents but, I don't understand the difference between a Remington Model 1200 carried by a civilian and a member of the armed forces. One is a hunting weapon and the other is killing weapon. |
|
Also, they Hmung or whatever they are, do not resepect individual
private property rights as a culture, just to add a little perspective to your specualation... Certainly no racial bias evident in a statement like that...... And it is all speculation from all sides. A "he said vs. he said". Nobody discussing this has made a blanket statement that any facts or representations are irrefutable. It's all theoretical at this point. |
"Gillis said only one rifle was found at the scene, near Roidt's body.
However, Vang said the hunters had several guns." This from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/23/hu...hot/index.html |
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ...
"Matt Lang" wrote in message om... The guy takes off and maybe someone fired a shot or even close to him (no doubt wrong but NOT cold blooded murder). Then the guy with the violence history snaps and takes them all down with his semi auto (why the **** is he hunting with an assault weapon???? Isnt that one against him?). shots in the back, dying people finished and all. Can you provide the definition of an assault weapon? I keep hearing the term "military style assault weapon" in the media and by gun control proponents but, I don't understand the difference between a Remington Model 1200 carried by a civilian and a member of the armed forces. One is a hunting weapon and the other is killing weapon. good point. I dont think there isnt , but ask in rec.guns. There are however semi auto rifles which are very suitable to fire lots of controlled rounds in short time, suitable for combat and there are semi auto rifles which arent. This is no black and white criteria though... If one hunts with an i.e. AR15 I would say he is hunting with an assault rifle .. Matt |
Also, they Hmung or whatever they are, do not resepect individual
private property rights as a culture, just to add a little perspective to your specualation... Except THEIR OWN I suppose, but the others property is the hmong property. I am sure if you step on hmong property and try to hunt there they wont be as nice. But then what else are they gonna do besides shooting you? It must feel safe to have these people there ... Matt |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: What a biased comment. Now we have drunken hunters, that tried to execute a scared guy. It was early in the morning, as some were traveling in the dark to the deer stand. They find a guy in the stand who does not belong there and accost him. Whether they fired or not, the scared guy shoots a couple. And from the news report. They radio, probably on FRS radios that one of the people has been shot. Several of the "hunters" are still at the cabin and jump in ATV's to help the shot person. They could have assumed it was a hunting accident. They did not bring their guns along, as they were on a recue mission for an injured person. They left the guns at the cabin. They would still be called hunters, as they were at their property to hunt deer, and you would call them hunters even if they were in camp. And nowhere is there any mention of drunkeness. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... If the 8 were armed they would have executed him and not the other way around. Matt If the eight were unarmed, how the heck were they "hunting"? Get a bunch of guys staggering around in a beer buzz vs. one sober guy scared for his life. Evens the odds a bit. Then add the factor of some of your buddies getting killed when the intended victim of a cruel "joke" takes the shot seriously and begins firing back. If you aren't prepared to see people going down on both sides of you and you panic as a result, the odds are evened a bit more. All those missing weapons are likely squirreled away in the bushes someplace. How many people go hunting without a gun? Never heard of anybody doing that, except the stereotypical cheating husband. :-) "Don't take you guns to town, son...leave your guns at home." You're posting as if the facts were known here, Bill. All we really know so far is what both sides have said about the tragedy. That's probably all we'll ever know with any certainty, unless there is a genuine confession from one or more of the participants. "Unarmed hunters." What a crock. And if you were still an incompetant reporter, you would still write stories about people and call them hunters, even if they were in the local bar. It is still an extremely biased comment by Mr. Gould. There is no report of drinking, etc. But he has drunken hunters trying to execute a scared guy. Biased to the max, and not data to support any of it! |
Hello Harry,
I would tend to agree with you on "no practical...reason" but wouldn't that reasoning also have to apply to road licensed 100+mph vehicles? We've done a bit of pest/pig hunting where a 20-round magazine wasn't enough, even resorting to duct-taping 2 of the magazines together. The rest of the hunting we do only requires 2 or 3 quick shots at most from a pump shotgun or a couple of well placed shots from a scoped bolt-action rifle. Thus, the level of practicality may differ from one individual to another. Gun-crazed may be one view of how our society is and incidents like this, though rare, only serve to feed more into that view. You will often hear us gun owners arguing that passing gun-control laws will only target law-abiding citizens instead of passing crime-control laws that target criminals, but this incident does not help our case at all unless it is proven that it was ALL in self-defense (unlikely). As for our foreign policy, I would agree with you if you can give me an example of one instance when we have invaded or showed aggressiveness towards a truly peaceful nation. We should fight our battles off-shore whenever we should ("could/can" views may differ, again). Franko "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Franko wrote: That part of the report is suspect. The part of the report about five "hunters" with one gun is very suspect. I feel sorry for those people who got shot and who got killed, especially the ones who had nothing to do with threatening the Hmong who may have felt he was being surrounded "again" by more "reinforcements." If, indeed, he was shot at first, the guy that took that first shot (also first one to be killed) is partially responsible for the deaths of his friends. Sad and tragic. One can look at this as either a case for or against semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. If this was a case of self-defense (initially, that is), then it was deadly unfortunate for the group of hunters to have picked on a single person, armed with a not-even-high-powered weapon, but nevertheless, well armed for the situation. If this was not a case of self-defense, then it was like that lunatic who killed several tourists in Tasmania that resulted in a nationwide ban on semi-autos and pump-actions. "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... The unarmed hunters were coming because they got a radio call that someone had been shot. They were not out hunting when the call came. This according to the newspaper report. There's no practical, non-aggressive reason for a civilian to own a rifle with a 20-shot magazine, just as there is no practical reason for a civilian to own a semi-auto pistol with a 12 or 13 shot or larger magazine. Most of these weapons are sub-par for hunting or target practice. Their primary purpose is to shoot other human beings. Unfotunately, we've a pro-violence, gun-crazed society. No other modern, western nation suffers from the kinds of lethal citizen versus citizen violence our country endures, nor our pooh-poohing of it when it happens. Why do I say pooh-poohing? Because, despite the fact that we have endless gun violence in this country, we never really do anything about it. And the Dodge City, armed cowboy mentality permeates our foreign policy, too. We think our guns (just a metaphor for all our weaponry) allow us to get away with any sort of violent aggressiveness we please. -- A passing thought: "We stand for things." —George W. Bush, Davenport, Iowa, Aug. 5, 2004 |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: What a biased comment. Now we have drunken hunters, that tried to execute a scared guy. It was early in the morning, as some were traveling in the dark to the deer stand. They find a guy in the stand who does not belong there and accost him. Whether they fired or not, the scared guy shoots a couple. And from the news report. They radio, probably on FRS radios that one of the people has been shot. Several of the "hunters" are still at the cabin and jump in ATV's to help the shot person. They could have assumed it was a hunting accident. They did not bring their guns along, as they were on a recue mission for an injured person. They left the guns at the cabin. They would still be called hunters, as they were at their property to hunt deer, and you would call them hunters even if they were in camp. And nowhere is there any mention of drunkeness. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... If the 8 were armed they would have executed him and not the other way around. Matt If the eight were unarmed, how the heck were they "hunting"? Get a bunch of guys staggering around in a beer buzz vs. one sober guy scared for his life. Evens the odds a bit. Then add the factor of some of your buddies getting killed when the intended victim of a cruel "joke" takes the shot seriously and begins firing back. If you aren't prepared to see people going down on both sides of you and you panic as a result, the odds are evened a bit more. All those missing weapons are likely squirreled away in the bushes someplace. How many people go hunting without a gun? Never heard of anybody doing that, except the stereotypical cheating husband. :-) "Don't take you guns to town, son...leave your guns at home." You're posting as if the facts were known here, Bill. All we really know so far is what both sides have said about the tragedy. That's probably all we'll ever know with any certainty, unless there is a genuine confession from one or more of the participants. "Unarmed hunters." What a crock. And if you were still an incompetant reporter, you would still write stories about people and call them hunters, even if they were in the local bar. Nah. When I was a reporter, I never wrote any articles about hunters. Too incompetent? |
I read that some were at the club house and got the call that someone had
been shot. So they went to help. Why would you go get a gun when going to help a person who was shot while hunting? You would assume he was shot accidentally by a buddy, or himself. "rudolfgun" wrote in message om... "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: The unarmed hunters were coming because they got a radio call that someone had been shot. The unarmed hunters... What a great newsgroup this is. Makes more sense than your passed gas thoughts. They would be referred to as hunters, even if they were in camp. You, in your reporter days would have referred to them as hunters. I guess you were as incompetent as a reporter as you are at delivering Democratic party votes. real fishy here. some one got shot... call his hunter friends whho kjnew thhat some got shot... and thhose hhunters came running withh no gun in thheir hands... in thhe middle of the wood, deer hunting? where are all the guns? do they have gun? Or do they play smart to get that guy by telloing police that they are unarmed? Real fisshy here... rudolf |
"Franko" wrote in message ... Hello Harry, ( snip) As for our foreign policy, I would agree with you if you can give me an example of one instance when we have invaded or showed aggressiveness towards a truly peaceful nation. We should fight our battles off-shore whenever we should ("could/can" views may differ, again). Franko Hello Franko: The United States of America did invade the peaceful country of Granada. Jim Carter |
|
JohnH wrote in message . ..
On 26 Nov 2004 08:32:06 -0800, (Backyard Renegade) wrote: SNIP Also, they Hmung or whatever they are, do not resepect individual private property rights as a culture, just to add a little perspective to your specualation... How, when you say 'whatever they are' can you also be knowledgeable enough to know their culture? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I am not a psudo-scholar, sorry... It was the spelling of the group name that I was unsure of... |
"Franko" wrote in message ... Hello Harry and Jim, None of the examples you gave qualified as "truly peaceful" nations as I offered in my argument. Grenada had deteriorated to the point where American citizens' lives were endangered and no one else on Grenada or in the world would take responsibility for protecting them. So we sent in Clint Eastwood... Franko......You've got to be kidding me.....Little tiny Grenada, with a population of less than 75,000 people was a danger to the United States of America!!! Grenada was a danger to no one at all! I was there in the early 1980's and Grenada was a very laid back and peaceful country and then the US Forces decided to invade. The people of Grenada had voted to have a socialist government and had invited some Cuban advisers to come for a visit. Is this the reason that the USA invaded Grenada and installed a parliament under the CIA? It had nothing to do with Grenada being a threat to the USA. Jim Carter Bayfield |
Hello Jim,
No, I wasn't kidding. In my previous post, I wrote, "Grenada had deteriorated to the point where American citizens' lives were endangered and no one else on Grenada or in the world would take responsibility for protecting them. So we sent in Clint Eastwood..." How did US citizens come under threat? Grenada was taken over by a Marxist military council (as in Cuban-backed revolutionary) on October 19, 1983 after a bloody coup (yes, you could stretch that to be some kind of vote). The Marxist junta, who "invited" Cuban advisers to come for a visit, were apparently encouraging (by its inaction) rampaging mobs to roam the country side which eventually led to the US citizens being threatened with no assurance or response that they would be kept safe (as the previous government in power had done so all those pre-coup years). To send a signal to Cuba and the USSR that they should not be meddling in the Caribbean, the island was invaded within the week by the US with the help from other Caribbean nations. There were US, Cuban and Grenadan casualties. The revolutionaries were rounded up with hundreds of Cuban advisers. Free elections were reinstituted the following year and Grenada has since been a peaceful nation...again. To the victor, the spoils... plus pro-victor history books... Franko "Jim Carter" wrote in message ... "Franko" wrote in message ... Hello Harry and Jim, None of the examples you gave qualified as "truly peaceful" nations as I offered in my argument. Grenada had deteriorated to the point where American citizens' lives were endangered and no one else on Grenada or in the world would take responsibility for protecting them. So we sent in Clint Eastwood... Franko......You've got to be kidding me.....Little tiny Grenada, with a population of less than 75,000 people was a danger to the United States of America!!! Grenada was a danger to no one at all! I was there in the early 1980's and Grenada was a very laid back and peaceful country and then the US Forces decided to invade. The people of Grenada had voted to have a socialist government and had invited some Cuban advisers to come for a visit. Is this the reason that the USA invaded Grenada and installed a parliament under the CIA? It had nothing to do with Grenada being a threat to the USA. Jim Carter Bayfield |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com