One thing that doesn't bode well for Vang, 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.

The guy was panicked, enraged, or both.
Still no excuse. My guess is the scenario probably developed like this;

1) group of hunters finds another hunter in their tree stand.

2) argument breaks out

3) hunters demanding tree stand say some ugly things, evicted hunter agrees to
leave.

4) somebody thinks it would be funny to fire a shot into the air, or into the
general direction of the retreating hunter (but well wide to miss) to see if it
would frighten him into a hastier, and more amusing exit.

5) evicted hunter interprets shot as an attack, returns fire.

6) firefight breaks out.

((why did none of the large group of hunters manage to hit their target? Aiming
through beer goggles? Who knows?))

7) evicted hunter goes "postal", is overcome by rage and blood lust, and
commits atrocities well beyond anything that could be justified as "self
defense".

If I were on the jury for a case like this, and the facts proved to be
consistent with my theoretical outline, I'd find a tiny speck of reasonable
doubt *might* exist up until the point where the large group of hunters fled
and the evicted hunter began chasing them down to kill the people he had missed
in the original gun battle.....

Even then, can you imagine what must have been going through the accused
hunter's mind as the large group was on their walkie-talkies and cell phones
calling in "reinforcements" and folks started arriving on ATV's to join in the
fray?

There's no excuse at all for what happened, but I think the story line "Gook
goes beserk and begins shooting down a bunch of good, white, Christian
Republicans without provocation" is extremely unlikely to be accurate. Did the
news report identify the ethnicity of the dead hunters? Does anybody *know*
whether any or all were white, or does that simply work as a device to fire up
an easily identified and stereotyped group?