Stand Your Ground: Chai Vang Case Revisited

[paix]

If Stand Your Ground existed and was presented, would Chai Vang have had a more persuasive argument? 

No.

Vang stated that the hunters deserved to die. That's not self defense.

[bulbasaur]

A self-defense case can be made.  Thus, it can be argued as justifiable.  Hypothetically, if Vang never spoke publicly and never took the stand, his chances would have been better.  His testimony was what really convicted him. 

I find nothing he or the white party did was justifiable. They paid the ultimate price and so did Chai.

[paix]

A self-defense case can be made.  Thus, it can be argued as justifiable.  Hypothetically, if Vang never spoke publicly and never took the stand, his chances would have been better.  His testimony was what really convicted him. 

I think it's incredibly hard to make a self defense case here, especially when you have 6 bodies!

[bulbasaur]

1.  The argument is whether it would be more persuasive or not, not necessarily whether he would win a different verdict.  His testimony is ultimately what convicted him. 

2.  This is a bit off-topic, but it can be argued that Vang is correct in his assessment.  It's not communicated eloquently, but still possibly correct. The hunters deserved to die because they were murderers out to kill me.  Moreover, it was a trick question.  People do this all the time in debate.  Look at the possible scenarios:

Lawyer:  Did they deserve die?
Vang: Yes.
Lawyer:  He's a cold-blooded murderer! 

Or..

Lawyer:  Did they deserve to die?
Vang: No.
Lawyer:  By his own admission, he killed people who didn't deserve it! 

It was a trap, and Vang's lawyer was too dumb to notice or even help.  Vang's lawyer should have never let Vang take the stand.  But since he did take the stand, Vang's lawyer should have rebutted, but didn't.  I don't know who Vang's lawyer was, but they probably don't deserve their degrees.  Vang's lawyer gave up before the case started. 

No.

Vang stated that the hunters deserved to die. That's not self defense.

[bulbasaur]

6 people attacked, 6 dead bodies.  Not that hard. 

Moreover, it is just as hard to argue that he is a cold-blooded murderer.  He didn't try to run away from the police.  He had a good military record.  Nothing in his history would indicate he was just a thug out to murder. 

I think it's incredibly hard to make a self defense case here, especially when you have 6 bodies!

[LaibLaus]

A self-defense case can be made.  Thus, it can be argued as justifiable.  Hypothetically, if Vang never spoke publicly and never took the stand, his chances would have been better.  His testimony was what really convicted him.

Sure, a self defense case can be made and argued as justifiable but even without his incriminating testimonies, the conclusion would be similar. He went Rambo on a group of unarmed people who cursed the living daylight out of him for deliberately trespassing. Did they deserve to die? No, having foul mouths do not justify their death.

Just look at your own scenario on your piece of land, you guys kept calm and everyone wins. If you guys were to mouth off on his trespassing arse, would he be justified had he killed you and your friends?  Absolutely not.

[LaibLaus]

6 people attacked, 6 dead bodies.  Not that hard. 

Moreover, it is just as hard to argue that he is a cold-blooded murderer.  He didn't try to run away from the police.  He had a good military record.  Nothing in his history would indicate he was just a thug out to murder.

He killed during the heat of the moment but some of his choices made were cold blooded thus, he can be labeled as cold blooded. He had no regard or remorse for those human life at that moment thus, the court and jury were fair and sound in the outcome.

[HUNG TU LO]

1) It is not reasonable to assume that one person took on six armed people, seasoned hunters by the way, in a straight-up firefight and somehow came out on top. I don't care if he was a "sharpshooter" in the army - mofo never done time overseas as he was just the National Guard...you and I can become the National Guard! It's not the special forces here, people. Even an active infantry unit US Marine could not win a straight-up firefight against six civilian hunters and if you think so, you watch too many movies, play too much Call of Duty, and you're a fukken retard. Therefore, based on reasoning, logic, and the testimonies presented, it is COMMON SENSE to assume that there was in fact, only one gun among the shooting victims.

2) Most of the victims were shot in the back. Not one, not two, but several. Also, if I recall, at least one person was shot while down. Six armed gunmen versus one guy and this one single guy doesn't retreat but in fact, moves in closer, shooting people as they run and finishing them off. You don't shoot someone in the back or when they are down except for one reason - intent to kill. If you still think that he isn't the aggressor, you are so retarded.

3) When Chai Vang finally left the zone, he came across two hunters and claimed he was lost. These two guys gave him a ride out of the area but soon realized that Chai Vang was the suspect in the shooting that day. The first thing a guilty person does is what prosecutors call "distancing themselves from the situation". They want to get out of the scene as soon as possible and as far away as possible in order to avoid being associated with the situation. If six guys were shooting at you and you ran away, running into two other hunters, what would be the first thing you do? "HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!! HELP!!!!!!!! GET ME OUT OF HERE! CALL THE POLICE!!!!!!! THERE'S PEOPLE TRYING TO KILL ME!!!!!!!!!!!" An innocent person has nothing to hide and would tell the truth immediately. When someone lies, they have a motive to lie.

4) Minneapolis police has had numerous calls to Chai Vang's house, most of which involved violence towards his wife. None of the these calls ever amounted to an arrest (I think maybe one did) but it does show that he has the capacity for violence. If he's willing to hurt his own wife, imagine what he could do to strangers in the woods if they simply said some words to piss him off.


Don't be a retard. Be objective and use reasoning, logic, and common sense. This isn't self-defense.

[Qau]

Hmmm..
1. The guy has a history of domestic violence
2. History of trespassing & fined multiple times for game violations
3.  He bred 10+ kids

and some of you called him a hero..  Perhaps some of you need to be in prison with Chai.

[Qau]

I know many Hmong shamen.. He needs to take responsibility for his action that day in the wood.
He may be a shaman, but he was probably a young immature shaman to not notice the spiritual signs prior to going into the wood that day. Unfortunately some Hmong men required a life changing event(death, divorce, jail time, etc.) to control or change their demeanor. (ua rau yus thiaj paub tab.) This man had plenty of chances to grow up..now dab los tsis pab neej los tsis pab. Tsis pom qab tu siab rau nws.

[VillainousHero]

Does stand your ground allow one to shoot someone in the back multiple times?

Unfortunately seems like people mistake stand your ground to be self imposed martial law with a gun in hand.

[dogmai]

Last I checked the white people approach him with racial slur and open fire on him while he walks away. Just place yourself in his shoes if they open fire on you in the middle of the wood how would you respond? If Chai used to be in the military then just imagine what sort of traumatic memories being triggered when approached by a group of racist white people with arms that open fired on you. He probably chased after them for the fear of re-enforcement its stop them while you can or the possibility of them come after you with more arms after you already responded right back at them.It won't take  a genius to know that in this Country the ones with privilege to express racism and still gets away are white, in the wood where people can freely express whatever animal thought they hold inside how do you think them white people been treating Chai? and for that reason its probably why Chai didn't felt any remorse. The whole scene could've been avoided had they politely approach him for trespassing. I don't see you Hmigger taking a neutral blame for both side other than blaming Chai alone, if Chai didn't came out the survivor its probably considered just a freak hunting accident and you Hmigger would easily believe it. Killing people is never good but both side should equally be judged.

Now here's a Hmigger.

[Qau]

Last I checked the white people approach him with racial slur and open fire on him while he walks away. Just place yourself in his shoes if they open fire on you in the middle of the wood how would you respond? If Chai used to be in the military then just imagine what sort of traumatic memories being triggered when approached by a group of racist white people with arms that open fired on you. He probably chased after them for the fear of re-enforcement its stop them while you can or the possibility of them come after you with more arms after you already responded right back at them.It won't take  a genius to know that in this Country the ones with privilege to express racism and still gets away are white, in the wood where people can freely express whatever animal thought they hold inside how do you think them white people been treating Chai? and for that reason its probably why Chai didn't felt any remorse. The whole scene could've been avoided had they politely approach him for trespassing. I don't see you Hmigger taking a neutral blame for both side other than blaming Chai alone, if Chai didn't came out the survivor its probably considered just a freak hunting accident and you Hmigger would easily believe it. Killing people is never good but both side should equally be judged.

I guess it evens out than....if someone called you a chink and you should shoot and kill that person. Hell yeah..might as well go after the rest of the group and ...maybe even burn down the cabin.      Some of you people scare me.

[bulbasaur]

It apparently allows someone to follow and stalk and unarmed kid, then shoot him. 

Does stand your ground allow one to shoot someone in the back multiple times?

[bulbasaur]

1.  Vang might have gone "Rambo," but you are assuming that the white hunters did not pose a threat.  Again, we don't know who shot first.  Vang contends that they shot first.  Also, Vang contends he was trying to leave, but wasn't allowed to.  Thus, the issue isn't as clear cut.  Issues that are not clear cut can be effectively argued. 

2.  My situation was different.  I owned it the land, I was unarmed, I didn't insult the hunter, and I allowed him to leave.   The hunter was not threatened. 

Sure, a self defense case can be made and argued as justifiable but even without his incriminating testimonies, the conclusion would be similar. He went Rambo on a group of unarmed people who cursed the living daylight out of him for deliberately trespassing. Did they deserve to die? No, having foul mouths do not justify their death.

Just look at your own scenario on your piece of land, you guys kept calm and everyone wins. If you guys were to mouth off on his trespassing arse, would he be justified had he killed you and your friends?  Absolutely not.