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.

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.

What does a good conduct medal have to do with mental health?

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
Didn't some Vietnam war hero do the same thing?
John H

Maybe but this isnt war this is civilized (?) america.


Thousands did.

In a war, you shoot at the enemy until he dies or surrenders, not just until he
turns his back on you.

Hunters=enemies? shoot them?

Matt

Thousands did.

In a war, you shoot at the enemy until he dies or surrenders, not just
until he
turns his back on you.

Hunters=enemies? shoot them?

Matt

John was using the opportunity to make a post election dig at his least
favorite candidate. Although John has admitted he would have done the same
thing in identical circumstances, he often said that
Kerry shooting a fleeing enemy in the back
(an enemy who momemnts earlier had fired on a US Navy Swift Boat), was absolute
proof that Kerry should not have been elected POTUS. Hey, maybe he was right,
as he wasn't. :-)

However, in a war, (not when hunting), it is my impression that the rules of a
formal duel do not apply. It isn't necessary to wait until a referee indicates
that its time to open fire, and nobody gives a ding if you have your back
turned. Attacking from behind, in some circumstances, is considered good
strategy, not "unsportsmanlike conduct".

If there might have been an excuse for the hunter defending himself by
returning fire, (assuming the other group began actually began firing first),
there isn't an excuse for chasing them down individually after they have fled
the scene and shooting them after the threat had been dispersed.

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
Thousands did.

In a war, you shoot at the enemy until he dies or surrenders, not just
until he
turns his back on you.

Hunters=enemies? shoot them?

Matt

John was using the opportunity to make a post election dig at his least
favorite candidate. Although John has admitted he would have done the same
thing in identical circumstances, he often said that
Kerry shooting a fleeing enemy in the back
(an enemy who momemnts earlier had fired on a US Navy Swift Boat), was absolute
proof that Kerry should not have been elected POTUS. Hey, maybe he was right,
as he wasn't. :-)

However, in a war, (not when hunting), it is my impression that the rules of a
formal duel do not apply. It isn't necessary to wait until a referee indicates
that its time to open fire, and nobody gives a ding if you have your back
turned. Attacking from behind, in some circumstances, is considered good
strategy, not "unsportsmanlike conduct".

If there might have been an excuse for the hunter defending himself by
returning fire, (assuming the other group began actually began firing first),
there isn't an excuse for chasing them down individually after they have fled
the scene and shooting them after the threat had been dispersed.



If the 8 were armed they would have executed him and not the other way around.

Matt

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. :-)

On 25 Nov 2004 20:16:12 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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. :-)

I've never heard of eight hunters going into the woods without at
least eight rifles. Usually there'd be a few pistols in the mix too.
At least this was the way we did it when I lived in Minnesota.

Maybe efficiency has outsourced the shooters. Now only one shooter is
used, and the other seven people carry all the dead deer.

John H

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

(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. :-)


You have a point but its possible that they had their guns in their
trucks. If you go hunting you dont drive aorund with loaded guns
drawn. More likely they were in unloaded in cases in the trucks. Then
you get to your spot and see someone in your stand. So they dont take
out your gun and shoot him but rather they tell hiim to get the ****
out of there plus some racial stuff ...

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.

Makes snese to me but LUCKILY I wasnt there.

Matt