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. So, with what is known and
claimed now, I'd guess that the other party went beyond just
pointing out that the Hmong man was on their property and
asking him to leave. ~ Now, if the Hmong man shot them because
he was called names or felt intimidated then, of course, that's
wrong. But if they fired any shot at him, even if just into the
air, then his firing back seems more justified.

About race:
It seems very possible that the whites, the Hmong man, or both
could have had racial tensions driving their actions. But so what?
It's a man's *actions* he should be judged on.


Gould Wrote:
This isn't a racial deal. It's a case where some trash talking got out of
hand
and a crazy man started shooting people as a result.

Anyone who insists on looking at this from a racial perspective is only,
in my
opinion, helping establish that it *could have* (not to say it did)
happened
just as the murdering nut job says it did.

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? 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?

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.

So, with what is known and
claimed now, I'd guess that the other party went beyond just
pointing out that the Hmong man was on their property and
asking him to leave. ~ Now, if the Hmong man shot them because
he was called names or felt intimidated then, of course, that's
wrong. But if they fired any shot at him, even if just into the
air, then his firing back seems more justified.

Having similar experiences on my own property with hunters, it can get
testy even if you are being totally polite. Some people, white
caucasian people I might add, don't seem to hold property rights as
closely when it's not their property being used and abused. I don't
want people on my property that I don't know are there - that's all I
ask. That's how the property is posted - in big yellow signs spaced
100 feet apart, call me first please.

If I had a dime for every time that has been ignored over the years,
I'd have fifty bucks. :)

The point is that one man went berserk threatened or not. Based on
the accounts of the incident, I would suspect that alcohol was
involved somehow.

We'll probably never find out.

Later,

Tom

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.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

snip

It will be interesting if he can be linked to the shooting of a hunter
in that same general area in 2001. Guy was found laying in the woods,
shot twice in the back. A late 80's Nissan or GMC pickup was reported
to have been seen in the area. Vang owns such a truck. And truck was
reported to have 3 asians. Vang had two companions, who have not been
located.

Might be no connection, might be a connection. I wonder if they got a
slug or two out of the 2001 guy.

del cecchi

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.

The scopes I've seen mounted on Chinese made SKS can come off in about two
seconds...push in lock release, twist scope off rifle (clockwise when
looking down from above)... Yes, you would have to remove it to use the iron
sights on the rifle because the scope mount does not allow "peep-through."
Iron sights are VERY easily used for short and medium distance because of
the "unlimited" (more unhindered) field of vision. Scopes are good for long
distance but have a very narrow field of vision -- difficult to aim at close
objects.

"RG" wrote in message
news:kT4pd.157542$G15.63881@fed1read03...

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.

[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

On 24 Nov 2004 12:09:29 -0800, (Matt Lang) wrote:

[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

Didn't some Vietnam war hero do the same thing?
John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

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.

"Military records obtained by The Associated Press show he spent six years in
the California National Guard and earned a sharpshooter qualification badge.
But his primary role during his time in the Guard, from 1989-95, involved
clerical duties.

After his discharge, he spent two more years in the Individual Ready
Reserve. His records also include a Good Conduct medal."

Obviously not the crazy man as first believed.