Stand Your Ground: Chai Vang Case Revisited

[bulbasaur]

I think you are trying to argue what is most likely true or what is morally righteous.  All I am saying is that if Vang never took the stand, and if he had a good lawyer, he could sway one juror.  Or, he could have changed his sentence. 

We keep coming back to "Who shot first?"  You agree that there is not conclusive evidence, but yet this somehow goes against Vang, or that it is neutral.  Because it is inconclusive, I believe it is in Vang's favor because it is the DA who is going for murder in the first degree.  The burden of proof is on the DA. 

We can't prove Zimmerman and the hunters did or didn't approach without life threatening actions.  We don't have Martin's testimony of the events.  Vang's testified that his life was threatened.  He Said She Said. 

You keep referring back to evidence.  However, the evidence against Vang is just as inconclusive if we remove Vang's testimony.  Let's review the evidence:  dead bodies shot in the back, contradicting testimony from the white hunters, missing guns and shells, tampered guns before the investigation started.  Is that enough for murder in the first degree?  Are you saying that one juror cannot be swayed?  What if the trial was in a different city?  Black jury?  Mixed Jury?  Asian jury?  Add Stand Your Ground, and it's reasonable. 

Read what I wrote above.

Both of the cases started off with a confrontation. In both the cases, there was no life threatening danger in confrontating the supposed "wrong-doers." It is what happened during that time that the two "wrong do-oers" did that made it life threatening. Evidence showed, both Zimmerman and the hunters confronted Martin and Vang with no life threatening actions. Whereas the actions of Martin and Vang showed life threatening actions.

Read what I wrote above.

"More reason" isn't evidence, thus it's unreliable.

Key word in bold. Could, if, should, all those are irrelevant concerning the case. None of it is evidence. And instead of standing his ground, he left the ground and pursue the others.

[dogmai]

I think you are trying to argue what is most likely true or what is morally righteous.  All I am saying is that if Vang never took the stand, and if he had a good lawyer, he could sway one juror.  Or, he could have changed his sentence. 

We keep coming back to "Who shot first?"  You agree that there is not conclusive evidence, but yet this somehow goes against Vang, or that it is neutral.  Because it is inconclusive, I believe it is in Vang's favor because it is the DA who is going for murder in the first degree.  The burden of proof is on the DA. 

We can't prove Zimmerman and the hunters did or didn't approach without life threatening actions.  We don't have Martin's testimony of the events.  Vang's testified that his life was threatened.  He Said She Said. 

You keep referring back to evidence.  However, the evidence against Vang is just as inconclusive if we remove Vang's testimony.  Let's review the evidence:  dead bodies shot in the back, contradicting testimony from the white hunters, missing guns and shells, tampered guns before the investigation started.  Is that enough for murder in the first degree?  Are you saying that one juror cannot be swayed?  What if the trial was in a different city?  Black jury?  Mixed Jury?  Asian jury?  Add Stand Your Ground, and it's reasonable.

I've been arguing using evidence from the trial. You've been arguing using "what if." We can't and will never know the truth about what happened. This is the case for most if not all trial cases. It is about putting all the evidence together and concluding to what is closest to the truth. This is way of this country's judicial system.

The "first shot" is inconclusive, that is why it is neutral. This is what I've been saying all along. Therefore it is in nobody's favor, and we must move on to other evidence. I've been disregarding this, but you keep saying it's in Vang's favor.

We are playing the roles of the lawyers in this scenario of the case, the only difference is, the "stand your ground" was added in. You've been arguing using the events of the trial to conclude that the results would've been different.

[bulbasaur]

You are trying to argue using the evidence from the trial, but the evidence from the trial is inconclusive.  Inconclusive evidence is in Vang's favor.  Without Vang's testimony, with a better lawyer, with minorities on the jury, and with better lawyers, are you saying that it's impossible to sway one juror? 

After "...putting all the evidence together and concluding to what is closest to the truth," are you saying there is no one who can reasonably doubt it? 

Inconclusive scenarios and evidence is always in the favor of the defendant.  Innocent until proven guilty.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution.  This is the way of our country's judicial system. 

After the notoriety of the Zimmerman case, do you not believe that jurors are going to be more keen on using Stand Your Ground as a precedent? 

Let's play the roles of the lawyers.  We both write an opening statement.  We both state our claims.  We both rebuttal once.  We both finish our conclusions.  We show 12 people.  Are you saying that I can't sway one of them?  All I need is 1 out of 12.  Those are pretty good odds. 

I've been arguing using evidence from the trial. You've been arguing using "what if." We can't and will never know the truth about what happened. This is the case for most if not all trial cases. It is about putting all the evidence together and concluding to what is closest to the truth. This is way of this country's judicial system.

The "first shot" is inconclusive, that is why it is neutral. This is what I've been saying all along. Therefore it is in nobody's favor, and we must move on to other evidence. I've been disregarding this, but you keep saying it's in Vang's favor.

We are playing the roles of the lawyers in this scenario of the case, the only difference is, the "stand your ground" was added in. You've been arguing using the events of the trial to conclude that the results would've been different.

[HUNG TU LO]

4. This is a weak argument and won't hold/be allowed in court. Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Prosecutor: Here are evidence showing Chai Vang is a violent man
Defense Attorney: Objection. Rule 404.
Judge: Sustained.

Federal Evidence Rule 404:
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Every criminal case in the history of mankind, will have produced some sort of criminal history. This is not to be used to charge the person in the current offenses (illegal) and this is not to be used as a judge of character (this would be a good way for a juror to bust and force a re-trial).

I was a jury on a criminal case involving robbery which lead to a person's death in Ramsey County, Minnesota. We were presented with the defendant's complete criminal history as it related to the current trial of 2nd degree homicide without intent, while committing a felony (aggravated robbery). We were told that a few years ago, the defendant was locked up for a few years for 1st degree robbery. Obviously, we were instructed that this is not evidence of the defendant's character and that we are not to charge him/her on this current trial based on this past case.

I believe this is discussed before the trial by the prosecutors and the defendant's attorney. And in my experience, 99% the prosecutors get to present and the judge agrees. There is nothing illegal about presenting criminal history as it relates to the current offenses should it establish that the person has the capacity to do certain actions.

So simply, you are wrong on this one.

[HUNG TU LO]

Inconclusive scenarios and evidence is always in the favor of the defendant.

But evidence isn't nitpicked. Everything is seen a parts of a whole picture. In the case of jurors, direct evidence holds the same weight as circumstantial evidence. With this said, holes in evidence and testimony actually are a disadvantage to the defendant.

The best way to describe this is as follows:

It rains crazy mad.

You are downstairs and you never heard, saw, or felt the rain.
Your neighbor was mowing the lawn and saw the gray clouds move in, felt the rain on his head, and saw the rain fall down. [direct]

It stops raining. The sun comes out and you go outside and see wet drops on your car, the grass is wet, and there are small puddles on the concrete. You come to the conclusion that it rained. [circumstantial]

Your testimony would not hold less weight than your neighbor who was drenched by the rain!


DID YOU KNOW THAT THE JURY IS INSTRUCTED BY LAW TO TREAT DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS THE SAME WEIGHT?

Chai Vang shoots. Chai Vang runs from the scene. Comes across two hunters and says he is "lost" and was boosted out of the there but eventually the driver figured out he was involved in the case.

Anyone sitting on the jury bench who doesn't come to the conclusion that Chai knew he did something bad and was trying to book out of town, is either bias or stupid.

[chidorix0x]

I watched bits and pieces of the "TRIAL"/documentary posted on Youtube regarding this case. 

(Most of you will think I am being BIAS, towards CV/Hmong, with my comment below, and that is your opinion but here are my thoughts.)

1.  CV was tried by an all White Jury.  (Historically/factually, all minority, even wrongfully, have always been found guilty.)

2.  CV lacked support from the Hmong community at large, coming to his aid/defense.  (Yeah, it is a given what you all will rant, pout, and shamefully disavow.  No point going there.)

3.  CV's testimony, or self-defense, was horrible.  His lawyer should have NEVER let him testify, or speak.  Period.

4.  I question the integrity of his Defense Lawyer, and how the case was handled.

5.  I felt the overall investigation, especially at the crime scene, and the testimonies (arguably lies) of the Plaintiffs/victims were sympatheticall y compromised, and even disregarded.  (From the documentary, one of the survivors believed -- told his wife -- CV was shot at first, but retracted his statement during trial.)

6.  The Prosecutor did not trial the crime, but trialed CV.  (Watch the documentary, and you'll see how the Prosecutor went about her tactic to get a "guilty" verdict.  This is where the Defense Attorney failed, or in my opinion, really did not do his best.  If you remotely under Law, trials, you will see my point.  If not, then, whatever.)

7.  It was a failed effort, due to all the pointers above, among others which is pointless to say.  (Some/most Hmong will be/is ashame of CV.  I am not.  Under the same circumstances, you all could have possibly done the exact same thing, if not worst.)

[chidorix0x]

My brother and I spoke with a law enforcement friend with a military background and PRO-GUN.  He said that had CV not shot in the back, he would be free today with stand your ground because it is very plausible the white men were the aggressor and in imminent danger, one can defend for their life.  However, the minute the evidence show that CV had shot in the back, and shot execution style, that entire defense is thrown out the window.

The moral of the story.  Keep calm and carry on.

The "law enforcement friend" lied, and only told you what you wanted, or what he felt, you wanted to hear out of sensitivity issues and concerns.

It is a KNOWN FACT that in Law Enforcement/Military training, one is told to "shoot to kill", regardless if it is the front, back, side, or upside down, backwards and forwards.  Let us not forget CV served/trained in the military at one point.  Lastly, how many times (on the News, practically daily), do you hear where a Law Officer shot and killed (an innocent at times) in the back, and was awarded a medal for "Bravery while on duty.  Examp:  There was that case, and others, where a Hmong kid ran, to resist arrest obviously, and was shot in the back, and died.  See, told you he lied to ya.)

[chidorix0x]

Chillax with the monster drink man.  You are way too hyper excited.  Calm down OK.  If it helps, the law enforcement guy was Hmong and I happen to agree with him.  Some of us are rational and unbias and some of you need to read check the evidence and the law book.  The Hmong kid who got shot running away, the cop was a bad cop and the force was protecting themselves from a black eye festering into a tumor against the force.  Sometimes, it helps for you to be famous or power like in the OJ Simpson case, and all that proves is that sometimes shit falls through he crack.  No one is claiming justice is perfect in execution 100%.

Let me put it this way.  I know (have) two very close family members who are "Police Officers", and others serving/active in the military.

More so, I have worked in, spoken with many Attorneys, in a Law Firm for over 10+years.

Yah, keep chilling with your "drugged up caffeine" drink, because apparently the evidence and law book looks all fuzzy and foreign to you.

[bulbasaur]

You wrote, "Anyone sitting on the jury bench who doesn't come to the conclusion that Chai knew he did something bad and was trying to book out of town, is either bias or stupid."

1.  There is no evidence that Vang tried to "book out of town."  Again, he was very cooperative with the police. 

2.  Vang knew something bad happened, but that doesn't mean that he felt it was his fault.  That doesn't mean that he was trying to "book out of town." 

3. Vang had no responsibility to tell anyone anything unless they were the police. 

Everything you said might be true, but I believe I can convince 1/12 of reasonable doubt if Vang never took the stand. 

But evidence isn't nitpicked. Everything is seen a parts of a whole picture. In the case of jurors, direct evidence holds the same weight as circumstantial evidence. With this said, holes in evidence and testimony actually are a disadvantage to the defendant.

The best way to describe this is as follows:

It rains crazy mad.

You are downstairs and you never heard, saw, or felt the rain.
Your neighbor was mowing the lawn and saw the gray clouds move in, felt the rain on his head, and saw the rain fall down. [direct]

It stops raining. The sun comes out and you go outside and see wet drops on your car, the grass is wet, and there are small puddles on the concrete. You come to the conclusion that it rained. [circumstantial]

Your testimony would not hold less weight than your neighbor who was drenched by the rain!


DID YOU KNOW THAT THE JURY IS INSTRUCTED BY LAW TO TREAT DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS THE SAME WEIGHT?

Chai Vang shoots. Chai Vang runs from the scene. Comes across two hunters and says he is "lost" and was boosted out of the there but eventually the driver figured out he was involved in the case.

Anyone sitting on the jury bench who doesn't come to the conclusion that Chai knew he did something bad and was trying to book out of town, is either bias or stupid.

[HUNG TU LO]

You wrote, "Anyone sitting on the jury bench who doesn't come to the conclusion that Chai knew he did something bad and was trying to book out of town, is either bias or stupid."

1.  There is no evidence that Vang tried to "book out of town."  Again, he was very cooperative with the police. 

2.  Vang knew something bad happened, but that doesn't mean that he felt it was his fault.  That doesn't mean that he was trying to "book out of town." 

3. Vang had no responsibility to tell anyone anything unless they were the police. 

Everything you said might be true, but I believe I can convince 1/12 of reasonable doubt if Vang never took the stand. 

1. Of course he was cooperative with the police. He was caught! Now he has an interest in cooperating because it may be his ticket to being found not guilty (which doesn't work if you're guilty in the first place!). It's very simple. You found crayons scribbled all over your wall and there are five kids in the room. No fukken way one of the kids will admit to it. But, walk in on a kid with a crayon scribbling on your wall, and it's "sorry, he told me to do it, she gave me the crayon, I won't do it again, promise, I'll clean it, blah blah."

2. So he stayed in the area and didn't run off? So he was being fired guns blazing, high-caliber rifle BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM, and yet, he still approached these two other white hunters not too far away? You would be scared shitting in your pants if supposedly, a whole hunting party was shooting at you and you were able to retreat. You sure as fukk wouldn't approach two stranger white dudes just awhile later.

3. Again, if five dudes or whatever number of dudes were shooting .308 and 30-06 at you and you made it out of the area, you would be crying like a biiitch and screaming for help from anyone and everything. You wouldn't calmly approach others and suggest for a ride out of the hunting grounds.


It appears many of you have a problem with common sense, logic, and reasoning.

No. Just admit that you're biased. You were probably talked down to or called names by white people. You felt mistreated once or twice in your life by white people and maybe it was legitimate prejudice on their part to treat you as such just because you were Asian. But to use that anger and somehow claim that Chai Vang was not guilty? You've got problems and you need therapy.

[HUNG TU LO]

Everything you said might be true, but I believe I can convince 1/12 of reasonable doubt if Vang never took the stand. 

He took the stand because it was the last ditch effort to save himself which failed. All of the evidence and testimony paints a pretty clear big picture as I mentioned earlier, show this case to an alien race exactly the way it was presented, and 1,000 times out of 1,000 times, guilty, guilty, guilty.

Just let it go people. This guy wasn't doing charity work or building playgrounds for inner-city kids. This guy was just a wife-beater who happened to let his anger get the best of him. So maybe they called him chink and gook...ooooooo oooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo o it hurts so much to your wittle heart and soul! Yeah, let's shoot them. Pathetic. Black people used to get lynched for looking at a white person the wrong way and no one ever fukken got arrested - that's real racism shitt right there. You are pathetic for making this guy to be someone important. What Chai Vang did, people do it nearly everyday in Detroit and Chicago. The only difference is that this was during hunting and on hunting grounds which rarely has cases where people actually point the gun and possibly shoot something that isn't an animal.

[bulbasaur]

1.  He didn't have to cooperate.  He could have kept silent.  Talking to the police knowing that you are guilty makes no sense.  Your logic is actually backwards. 

2.  You could be right, but that doesn't mean Vang can't create reasonable doubt with an immediate danger argument. 

3.  You are only presuming how people should feel.  You are presuming how Vang should have felt.  Just because you would be "crying like a biiitch and screaming for help from anyone and everything," that doesn't mean that Vang is guilty for not acting that way. 

You talk about common sense, logic, and reasoning.  You then went on to presume things about me.  You would actually be wrong.  Personally, I actually think he is guilty.  I think dogmai makes a very strong point.  However, that doesn't mean that I don't believe he could have a different sentence given a better argument.  Do you see how your logic is flawed?  You presumed things about me, but it's wrong.  Similarly, you presumed things about the case, and it's wrong. 

To add to your illogical argument, you said that 100% of an alien race would find Vang guilty.  Think about that?  You're saying it is an impossibility.  You're pretty much saying it is a scientific law.  But anyways, you are welcomed to feel that way.  Hypothetical aliens is not a strong argument anyways.  We're talking about people on the jury, not aliens.  In the real world with real people, 1/12 are decent odds if Vang never took the stand and if he had a better lawyer. 

1. Of course he was cooperative with the police. He was caught! Now he has an interest in cooperating because it may be his ticket to being found not guilty (which doesn't work if you're guilty in the first place!). It's very simple. You found crayons scribbled all over your wall and there are five kids in the room. No fukken way one of the kids will admit to it. But, walk in on a kid with a crayon scribbling on your wall, and it's "sorry, he told me to do it, she gave me the crayon, I won't do it again, promise, I'll clean it, blah blah."

2. So he stayed in the area and didn't run off? So he was being fired guns blazing, high-caliber rifle BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM, and yet, he still approached these two other white hunters not too far away? You would be scared shitting in your pants if supposedly, a whole hunting party was shooting at you and you were able to retreat. You sure as fukk wouldn't approach two stranger white dudes just awhile later.

3. Again, if five dudes or whatever number of dudes were shooting .308 and 30-06 at you and you made it out of the area, you would be crying like a biiitch and screaming for help from anyone and everything. You wouldn't calmly approach others and suggest for a ride out of the hunting grounds.


It appears many of you have a problem with common sense, logic, and reasoning.

No. Just admit that you're biased. You were probably talked down to or called names by white people. You felt mistreated once or twice in your life by white people and maybe it was legitimate prejudice on their part to treat you as such just because you were Asian. But to use that anger and somehow claim that Chai Vang was not guilty? You've got problems and you need therapy.

[HUNG TU LO]

In the case that I was a juror, no gun was ever found. No one saw the victim get shot and therefore, no one could point the finger at who did the shooting. But we, the jury, found him/her guilty. Why? Because you've got to be a fukken moron to not see the big picture after seeing all the evidence and hearing the testimonies. Not a single person, using common sense, logic, and reasoning, ever went not guilty. Because simply, we are not fukken morons.

If it was sunny, then it rained while you were in the basement, and you came back outside and it had stopped raining, but your friend told you to look at the water drops on your car, the puddles on the ground, and the wet grass, you would be a fukken moron to suggest that maybe the fire department activated the firehose down the street. Logic, common sense, and reasoning would suggest that it did fukken rain and if you came to a different conclusion, you are a fukken moron.

These are suggestions made by fukken morons:
Chai Vang shoots people in the back and some victims were shot multiple times. Chai Vang was never shot or suffered any physical injury.
Moron: His actions are justified.

Chai Vang flees the area, comes across other hunters and suggests for a ride out of the area. He didn't mention anything about the shootings.
Moron: He was scared! He was scared of white people....but he still approached white people for a ride!

Chai Vang's home has been visited multiple times by Minneapolis Police because of disturbance calls involving being violent towards his significant other.
Moron: What does that have to do with anything? I mean, it shows that he has the capacity to be violent, but whatevvvvvvvvv eeeeer.

Fukken morons, I tell ya...

Hypothetical aliens is not a strong argument anyways.  We're talking about people on the jury, not aliens.  In the real world with real people, 1/12 are decent odds if Vang never took the stand and if he had a better lawyer.

Aliens were used as a example to show that if you presented this case to a certain group which had no bias, no prejudice, no interest towards the human races and race relations and race implications, that they would find that Chai Vang was the aggressor and did not shoot in self-defense nor was his actions justified.

Wow. You took aliens literally.     

[bulbasaur]

I see you are backtracking from your presumptions.  You were wrong on one thing, so what makes you think you are right on everything else? 

We are not talking about you as a juror.  We are talking about the odds of finding 1/12 jurors to deem reasonable doubt.  Also, you need to remember the actual debate.  The debate is not between Guilty and Not Guilty.  He could still be found guilty, but maybe not of 1st degree murder or a life sentence. 

You can use common sense, logic, and reasoning to conclude reasonable doubt.  For some people, the poor police work and contradicting testimonies of the white hunters is already enough. 

You used your common sense, logic, and reasoning to conclude that I thought Vang was not guilty.  You used your common sense, logic, and reasoning to conclude that I had personal issues with white people.  You were wrong.  Your common sense, logic, and reasoning could be right, but it is not absolute.  Many people know this. 

You don't understand why your alien example does not work.  Re-read the topic of the thread.  It specifically talks about Stand Your Ground.  People have natural biases.  There are no such things as aliens.  The Zimmerman case was a very popular case.  Almost everyone heard of it.  If the Vang case came after that, jurors might be more inclined to use that as a precedent in Vang's favor. 

You wrote, "If it was sunny, then it rained while you were in the basement, and you came back outside and it had stopped raining, but your friend told you to look at the water drops on your car, the puddles on the ground, and the wet grass, you would be a fukken moron to suggest that maybe the fire department activated the firehose down the street."  But if there were a fire truck down the street, it becomes plausible.  After all, you did say it was sunny.  Reasonable doubt. 

You don't seem to understand that we are not talking about truth.  We are talking about whether or not 1/12 jurors can find reasonable doubt. 

In the case that I was a juror, no gun was ever found. No one saw the victim get shot and therefore, no one could point the finger at who did the shooting. But we, the jury, found him/her guilty. Why? Because you've got to be a fukken moron to not see the big picture after seeing all the evidence and hearing the testimonies. Not a single person, using common sense, logic, and reasoning, ever went not guilty. Because simply, we are not fukken morons.

If it was sunny, then it rained while you were in the basement, and you came back outside and it had stopped raining, but your friend told you to look at the water drops on your car, the puddles on the ground, and the wet grass, you would be a fukken moron to suggest that maybe the fire department activated the firehose down the street. Logic, common sense, and reasoning would suggest that it did fukken rain and if you came to a different conclusion, you are a fukken moron.

These are suggestions made by fukken morons:
Chai Vang shoots people in the back and some victims were shot multiple times. Chai Vang was never shot or suffered any physical injury.
Moron: His actions are justified.

Chai Vang flees the area, comes across other hunters and suggests for a ride out of the area. He didn't mention anything about the shootings.
Moron: He was scared! He was scared of white people....but he still approached white people for a ride!

Chai Vang's home has been visited multiple times by Minneapolis Police because of disturbance calls involving being violent towards his significant other.
Moron: What does that have to do with anything? I mean, it shows that he has the capacity to be violent, but whatevvvvvvvvv eeeeer.

Fukken morons, I tell ya...

Aliens were used as a example to show that if you presented this case to a certain group which had no bias, no prejudice, no interest towards the human races and race relations and race implications, that they would find that Chai Vang was the aggressor and did not shoot in self-defense nor was his actions justified.

Wow. You took aliens literally.     

[bulbasaur]

And this is where you lack critical thinking skills. 

You said, "If you can convince the PH community, WE NEED TO duckING RAISE MONEY TO GET THE BROTHER OUT." 

1.  You can't be tried twice for the same crime without new evidence. 

2.  Some people on PH actually support Vang.  How is that "clearly a NO?"

Did those same critical thinking skills ever clear up what 17th century scholars thought about a flat earth?   

Critical thinking requires us to sift through the mud, and get rid of the noise.  When I am faced with a very complex problem, I apply reduction analysis or morphological analysis.  In this case, I would apply morphological analysis and remove all the stupid noises such as race, ethnicity, and focus clearly on a critical single event.  That critical event is CV shoot a human being in the back.  Then the question becomes, is a human being justified for shooting another human being in the back.  The answer to that is clearly a NO.  CASE CLOSE.

If anyone disagrees, present a full casework around that singular point.  If you can convince the PH community, WE NEED TO duckING RAISE MONEY TO GET THE BROTHER OUT.