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.


Suspect's Statement

Court document (pdf): Probable cause statement, including interview
with suspect (Note: Some obscenities expunged)


Recent Coverage

11/21/04: 5 killed, 3 hurt in hunting rampage
11/22/04: 6th victim dies from Sunday's shooting
11/22/04: Alleged shooter was avid hunter
11/22/04: Victims gathered at deer camp every year
Video: TMJ4 reports



Graphic/Enrique Rodriguez
What happened


Victims Fund

A fund has been set up for the families of the victims and survivors
of the shooting. Donations may be sent to:
Rice Lake Hunters Survivors and Victims Fund
Dairy State Bank
16 S. Main St.
Rice Lake, WI 54868

The account from Chai Soua Vang to investigators differs sharply from
details released Monday by the Sheriff's Department and from the
accounts of the victims, who describe an essentially unprovoked
shooting rampage by Vang, a 36-year-old Hmong man from St. Paul, Minn.

Vang, a truck driver, is suspected in the slayings of six hunters and
the wounding of two others, according to a probable cause
determination signed by Circuit Judge Norman L. Yackel here this
morning.

Vang is being held on $2.5 million cash bail. His next court date is
expected to be Nov. 30.

The document gives two versions of events that differ on key facts
such as who shot first, how many guns the group had and what was said,
or not said, between Vang and the group.

Vang gave this account to investigators, according to the document:

Vang said that he was hunting on private land, got lost and climbed up
an empty tree stand. After 15 minutes, another hunter confronted him.

Vang said that he responded that he didn't know it was private land
and didn't see any "no trespassing" signs. Vang said he got down and
started to walk away and then heard the other hunter call over his
walkie-talkie. Two all-terrain vehicles carrying five or six men
quickly arrived.

The group surrounded him, called him racially derogatory names and
ordered him off the land. Only one in the group had a gun, Vang said.
Someone wrote down Vang's hunting license number and said law
enforcement would be called.

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.

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.

Vang said he walked up to the man who groaned. Vang then walked away.
Investigators believe that was 20-year-old Joey Crotteau, who died at
the scene.

Vang heard one of the men call on a walkie-talkie, saying "We've been
shot and need help."

Vang reversed his blaze orange vest to a camouflage and reloaded his
20-round magazine with five or six bullets. Vang said he saw three
more men arrive on an ATV but didn't shoot at them because they had
rifles. The men spent a short time with the wounded and then left,
Vang said.

Another ATV arrived with two people on it - Jessica Willers and Al
Laski - one of whom had a gun, Vang said. Authorities said Monday
Willers and Laski arrived at the scene unarmed.

Vang said he ran and the ATV drove by him. When they saw him, Vang
said, the ATV stopped. He said Laski removed his gun from his
shoulder. Vang said he fired three or four times and both people fell
off the ATV.

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.

Vang said he didn't want to shoot anyone else and threw away his
ammunition.

Authorities said only one rifle was found at the scene of the
shooting.

Lauren Hesebeck, injured in the shooting, gave a different account to
investigators. According to that account:

Terry Willers confronted Vang for trepassing and called his friends.
Robert Crotteau, Joey Crotteau, Hesebeck, Dennis Drew and Mark Roidt
arrived on ATVs. There was another verbal exchange.

Vang started to walk away and at 40 yards, took the scope off his gun,
turned and started firing on the group, Hesebeck said. Willers shot
back and then was hit and went down, he said.

Vang then shot and hit Drew and Roidt. Hesebeck said he attempted to
hide behind the ATV. Vang moved around it and shot Hesebeck in the
shoulder, Hesebeck said.

Vang chased Robert and Joe Crotteau who ran and shot them. Hesebeck
called for help. Other men arrived and took Willers away. Hesebeck
said he saw another ATV approach and heard more gunshots.

Officials said the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office will prosecute
the case, because of its scope and complexity.

Meanwhile, the two survivors continued to improve, officials said.

Willers was upgraded from serious to fair at St. Joseph's Hospital in
Marshfield today.

Hesebeck was released from the hospital Monday night before 9 p.m.

Theresa Hesebeck, also the sister of Denny Drew, who died Monday
night, said the family was trying to regroup on Tuesday morning and
that her husband was recovering at home.

"Your place is at home at a time like this," she said.

The couple have a blended family that includes seven children.

David Drew, a brother of Denny Drew, said Tuesday he was trying to
come to grips with the death of his brother and close friends.

A prayer vigil is set for 7 tonight at the Holy Trinity Catholic
Church in Haugen, where three of the victims lived.

Complete coverage of this story will appear online later today and in
the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in the morning.

Based on the way you phrased the question, I suppose there is absolutely no
possibility that the "white" hunters engaged in racially oriented insulting and
no possibility that some (possibly) drunken hunter fired a shot at the "gook"
just for fun.

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.

On 23 Nov 2004 22:48:08 -0800, (steve) wrote:

Suspect says hunters provoked him
Vang says he was surrounded, called names and shot at before shootings

Yes - the good old race card.

Let's just call it what it was - idiotic behavior on both sides
resulting in eight people dead for no reason.

Later,

Tom

On 23 Nov 2004 22:48:08 -0800, (steve) wrote:

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.


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.

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.

Dave

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?

"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.

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

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:40:59 -0500, Gary Warner wrote:


But how can the guy proove he was shot at first?

It seems to me, the two different accounts are varied and *detailed*
enough, that a good forensic team would be able to sort out which is the
more truthful. 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.

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?

News report I saw locally said the large group only had one gun between
them. I don't know if this was the first group or the enlarged group after
reinforcements arrived. If they were all armed...how come no one was able
to shoot back.
I always said give the deer a gun to shoot back. Obvious where the odds
would lie.