No, because he went after those people.
The most incriminating thing is what you said in that last paragraph. Two years in prison and he came out with no remorse. He went on the stand and said that they deserved to die.
As for stand your ground, I am not sure. I agree with you that it is most likely self defense. If I recall correctly, the news article said that the Meka people shot first... two shots hit the trees near his head. That's when he dropped down and took them out one by one.
I don't recall the details... but I do remember that testimony between the whites and forensic indicates that the meka shot first.
He was on one of my FB groups that I manage. He used to come on and participated in some of the discussions... I am not sure if he still does. I haven't seen him for a while. He seems to be very sad. I didn't let on that I knew who he was.
He did not have a good lawyer.
Maybe because his lawyer did not advise him.
Come on dude, don't you know that stand your ground only applies to white people?
How come Chai Vang did not have any hunting buddies to testify for him? Any why was he set up as the lone wolf against tons of whites in this situation? Were his buddies hiding or just not up to defending him? I'm just very curious. Ty.
mloog zoo zoo nawb!
6 dead rednecks for one hmong....JUSTI CE is SERVED in the name of humanity!!!!
Always remember...."know your enemy and know yourself"-Sun Tsu.
If you are push to the brink of insanity where you feel your life is in danger....say a prayer and take out your threat, but make sure you walk out of there as the lone survivor. Dead man speak no tale.
Get this through your skull, hmoob men!
The most incriminating thing is what you said in that last paragraph. Two years in prison and he came out with no remorse. He went on the stand and said that they deserved to die.
As for stand your ground, I am not sure. I agree with you that it is most likely self defense. If I recall correctly, the news article said that the Meka people shot first... two shots hit the trees near his head. That's when he dropped down and took them out one by one.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu
Nightrider, I agree with your assessment. And no matter what he said on the stand, he was doomed anyway. However, I do believe that after sitting in prison for two years, he would have came up with something better.
At the same time, I understand why he said what he did. He was going to prison anyway. He knew that already. He was sending a message out to the meka people who think they own this land... loud and clear:
Treat people the way you WANT to be treated. There are consequences to every action. He behaved in the same way that they did towards him. The ONLY DIFFERENCE was that he was trained as a sniper and they were just mere hunters.
If this was a war zone, he would have been a hero.
Would you have handle the situation differently or the same way?
Chai vang is a HERO regardless!!! A hero to those who can not defend themselves in the face of these prehistoric neanderthals!
This thread wasn't really meant to be a morality topic, but...
1. Calling Vang a hero might be a bit too far.
2. Calling him a straight-up cold murderer might be too far too.
Vang was originally in the wrong. He shouldn't have even been there. Also, from his own account, he checked a person whom he already shot. The person was already disabled from combat, but he killed the person anyways.
That being said, it was a stressful situation. It would be hard for anyone to keep all these moral and legal issues in mind while guns are being shot. Moreover, if Vang was a straight-up cold murderer, he would have shot the white people from the tree stand. Clearly, Vang was trying to leave, but somehow he didn't.
No one really knows what happened in those woods but the people who were there. Who shot first? Whose life was in danger? The white people's account is not consistent or even realistic. Vang's actions were brutal. The white people are dead, and Vang is in prison.
I said murderer nothing more or less but since you now have mentioned that he checked for life signs and then killed after the person(s) was/were disabled; I am changing my stance to a cold blooded murderer. ;)
The counter-argument is whether it is expected for a person to be able to keep sense of moral and legal issues during times like this? Some people have their judgement impaired if they have a bad hair day. If Vang thought his life was in danger, is it so illogical to eliminate all threats? A disabled person could still call for help against him. Vang had no idea how many more of them there were, and he had a long way to go to get to safety.
It should be noted that Vang was completely cooperative with the police......pr obably a little bit too cooperative. Cold-blooded murderers usually don't do that. Bad lawyer.
Once again, no one really knows what happened in those woods but those people.
Nightrider, I agree with your assessment. And no matter what he said on the stand, he was doomed anyway. However, I do believe that after sitting in prison for two years, he would have came up with something better.
At the same time, I understand why he said what he did. He was going to prison anyway. He knew that already. He was sending a message out to the meka people who think they own this land... loud and clear:
Treat people the way you WANT to be treated. There are consequences to every action. He behaved in the same way that they did towards him. The ONLY DIFFERENCE was that he was trained as a sniper and they were just mere hunters.
If this was a war zone, he would have been a hero.
The stand your ground won't help him because he he went after the other people. Maybe if he shot them right then and called the cops, that might of helped him. Although it was a bad thing that those people got killed, something good did come out of it. The event showed people how people shouldn't handle a situation like that, from both parties.
Something similar happened to my cousins. They made a smart choice and decided to leave instead of making the situation worse.
Funny you say that...
A few months prior to Vang's situation, I just bought some land. I was on scholarship, and I had some money left over. I didn't want to party my money away, I figured it was a decent investment. I put up some private property signs around the land. A few weeks later, I brought some friends to check out what I bought. We called it the Savage Land because there wasn't anything on it (Plus, we were comic geeks...for those that got the reference). As we were walking, we met up with a hunter. It went kinda like this...
Me: Hey, how you doing?
Hunter: Mmm.
ME: See anything out here today?
Hunter: Not with the noise you making.
He was giving some attitude, and it looked like he was going to say some junk. So I replied,
Me: Sorry. I just bought this land from Person X a few weeks ago. I put up some private property signs too. My friends and I were just surveying the land. The plan is to walk around it starting from the north side.
Hunter: Alright. You have a nice day.
He didn't give any attitude after that. There was no need for me to pick a fight because he had the gun. A few weeks later, the Chai Vang situation occurred. It wasn't the same thing, but similar.
He may be your hero but his deliberate decision to sit in someone else's deer stand escalated to the point of no return. Shooting the unarmed men and a woman, it takes a certain person to be able to accomplish that and the word is not even close to hero but the exact opposite.
He's a murderer in my book, nothing more or less and deserves to be in that tiny cell until his end.
A HERO comes in many forms to many people. If you see Vang as a cold-blooded murder...that's your right. I find it hard for an asian man, outnumbered, will taunt nor have the capacity to "SHOOT" these prehistoric neanderthals first? My takes is that Vang was harassed, taunted at, call racial names, and SHOT at. Shooting at someone who's walking away is asking for retaliation/self defense! When your life is in danger, your first thought is to neutralized the threat at any cost! All else come after when the dust has settled!
Did he deserved to go to Prison? Yes. Did those people deserved to die? Yes. Is he a Hero? Fawking Yes. No need for mumbo jumbo. It was 1 man vs many who shot at him first and defended himself. He lost it when he started chasing to kill in cold blood. My 2 cents. Keep the change.
Looks like the guy that killed Cha Vang must be your hero too. And of course if that guy isn't your hero, then the saying is true about you.
It's not offensive until it happens to your own.
First of all back the fawk up before you get smack the fawk up. 1) the report of chai vang getting killed is false. 2) why would i say the white person is a hero dumbass? I was referring to chai vang. 3) Chai is my own vang blood. However he is from a different vang clan. 4) the only true thing is that you got smack back into your place.
You are jumping the gun a little: Google is your best friend and dogmai did not make a typo from Chai to Cha Vang. Give you more time to absorb the new info. ;)
Okay I'll admit I made a mistake there. Shit how was i suppose to know the murderer and the murdered got similar names. No wonder I thought that dude spell his name wrong.
Don't know the full story but if you're Hmong then you know the mentality of Hmong people, especially as a Minority with no Country. Hmong will never barge into others to cause any unnecessary trouble and any animals if cornered to the extreme would bite back.
Reasons why Vang shouldn't be called a hero:
1. He was originally in the wrong. He shouldn't have been there. He was trespassing.
2. No need to kill a person who is already down.
3. The enemy was already running away.
4. He had zero remorse for the situation and the killings.
There could be very good reasons for all of the above. I defended Vang earlier. However, that only makes him justified , not a hero.
If Stand Your Ground existed and was presented, would Chai Vang have had a more persuasive argument?
I find nothing he or the white party did was justifiable. They paid the ultimate price and so did Chai.
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.
No.
Vang stated that the hunters deserved to die. That's not self defense.
I think it's incredibly hard to make a self defense case here, especially when you have 6 bodies!
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.
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.
Does stand your ground allow one to shoot someone in the back multiple times?
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.
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.
Does stand your ground allow one to shoot someone in the back multiple times?
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.
Seems you take into account every word claim by the White people, but have you consider Chai's claim one of them shot at Chai first? And I was only guessing what Chai might've believe at that moment.
Most of the victims were shot in the back...at least one person was shot while down...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.
When Chai Vang finally left the zone, he came across two hunters and claimed he was lost...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.
If you came across a race of aliens with no bias or prejudice towards Asians, with no favoritism to whites, with no interest in anything on earth, and presented the case of Chai Vang based on our nation's laws, the entire alien race would objectively come to a single conclusion: Chai Vang was not acting in self-defense.
^And here's an I-D-I-O-T ...+ Hmigger. :idiot2:
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.
, if Chai didn't came out the survivor its probably considered just a freak hunting accident and you Hmigger would easily believe it.
Seems you take into account every word claim by the White people, but have you consider Chai's claim one of them shot at Chai first? And I was only guessing what Chai might've believe at that moment.
Vang could argue immediate danger. He could argue that allowing them to live would only mean they can re-group, track, and kill him later. This is plausible if you believe Vang's account that the white hunters shot first, and that they didn't allow him to simply walk away.
The problem with this is, the location of the last victims and Chai's actions right after the first ones. First, he himself could've reteat, but instead he pursued them. There was a significant amount of distance between the victims. Which brings us to the second reason. He took his scope off. Why would this be important? Because it is easier to aim if the shooter is on the move while in closer range. Which brings us to the third reason. If Chai would've reteated or stayed there and "stood his ground," having the scope on would've been more efficient because of the distance if the white people should regroup and went after him. He was no longer the defense, instead, he became the offense.
* just ask all those COD people, they know. Quick-scope vs camping. ;D
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.
The location of the dead bodies wouldn't even be a factor if Vang could effectively argue what the immediate danger was. The immediate danger could also include allowing the white hunters to run away, but only for them to regroup, track, and kill him in the woods. He could argue that if he didn't chase them down, they would have chased him down. Once again, it's argumentative on who shot first and whether or not Vang was allowed to leave. This doesn't even include whatever threats the white hunters might have said.
Vang removing his scope could also be interpreted as Vang trying to put away his equipment. Or, it could also be interpreted that Vang was preparing for a worst case scenario, which happened. It's not clear. Preparing for a worst case scenario is not the same thing as starting it. Once again, we don't know who shot first.
As for Stand Your Ground, Vang could argue the the area of his ground. Also, he could argue that he was under no obligation to retreat after they shot first.
Being defensive or offensive is almost irrelevant if a person can prove immediate danger, stand your ground, or no duty to retreat. For example, Zimmerman.
Moreover, Vang was outnumbered. Vang came down from the tree stand. Unless Vang was suicidal, there is no advantage for Vang shooting first. Of course, you could argue Vang's mental state before the first shot.
If Vang didn't take the stand and had a better lawyer, I think Vang had a pretty good chance of manslaughter instead of murder. His sentence probably would have been different too. If the DA only wanted murder, then Vang might have gotten lucky and got off free. For example, Zimmerman.
What I said above covers it.
What I said above covers it.
What I said above covers it.
What I said above covers it.
There is no evidence of who fired first. That being said, there are two possible ways that this started. (my opinion of course)
1. The white people fired first because of racism, anger, hate, etc., causing Vang to retaliate. (self-defense)
2. Vang's first thought that came to mind to retaliate. Striking first, with good enough distance, is the advantage. This equalized the disadvantage of being outnumbered, compared to close quarters.
These two things are just possobilities because of the lack of evidence on who shot first, but they are plausable.
This was probably a part of the reason that "caused" him to lose the case, but not the major reason. The main reason was his pursuit of the white people. As I mentioned above, the defense became the offense. The initial shot(s) was the immediate danger, the "stand your ground" part. There wasn't enough evidence to back his claims of further danger. As I recall, there was only one shot from the white people. That's evidence there that Vang was no longer in immediate danger after the white people fled and there was no need to pursue them.
Of course anybody can argue that the white people did this and Vang did that, but at the end nobody knows what happened but those who were there. The only thing we can do is piece the puzzle together with what pieces that are available to us. It might not have been cold blood murder, but it wasn't self-defense.
Don't know the full story but if you're Hmong then you know the mentality of Hmong people, especially as a Minority with no Country. Hmong will never barge into others to cause any unnecessary trouble and any animals if cornered to the extreme would bite back.
The fact that nobody really knows what happens is room for reasonable doubt. Moreover, the testimony from the white hunters were inconsistent. That adds more reasonable doubt. The unrealistic portrayal of the situation of the white people adds more reasonable doubt. It's unrealistic that all each hunters didn't bring a gun with them on a hunting trip. They also claimed to be completely polite. Thus, they are claiming Vang went psycho all by himself. The police investigation was sloppy. They couldn't find the guns and the shells. One white hunter claimed they never shot. One said that they shot once. The guns had been tampered with before the investigation. All of these things should have been in Vang's favor during the case. It should have been enough to come down from murder to manslaughter.. ..if he never took the stand.
All of this is irrelevant to the "stand your ground" defense. Even if he did say that the white people deserve to die, that's doesn't effect the fact that he pursued them with no evidence of immediate danger after they fled.
I was just going on a tangent because the discussion went on a tangent.
As for Stand Your Ground, I disagree with the assertion that a person must be defensive for it to apply. Zimmerman's case proves it. I disagree that the location of the bodies would make any difference because Vang could still argue immediate danger from the white hunters (difficult maybe, but possible). I don't believe the taking off of the scope is enough proof to show initial intent. I believe it is possible to argue that Vang was under no obligation to retreat. The evidence (or lack thereof) provides reasonable doubt. The white hunters contradicting testimony provide reasonable doubt. Moreover, Vang's evidence of immediate danger is the initial shot the white hunters took, their threats, and the fact that they didn't allow him to leave. If they didn't allow him to leave, and they took the first shot, it is unreasonable to believe they will kill you? If they were out to kill you, is it unreasonable to kill them first? Vang could argue that he was still in immediate danger as long as he was in the woods and the white hunters were still alive to chase him. Thus, he had to kill them.
I think there is enough doubt. However, his testimony and crap lawyer did him in. Not to mention, his jury of "peers."
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.
The two cases are different. Zimmerman was defensive. When an immediate threat happens, being on the defense doesn't necessarily mean waiting to get before striking. And offensive doesn't necessarily mean striking first.
The distance does play a factor. Zimmerman shot from a distance. Vang shot the first and second from a distance. These were both defensive shots. It's the distance between the victims that is key. Vang was no longer defensively shooting, it was now offensively.
Was I said above, there is no evidence of who shot first. It's his words against their words. Therefore, we can't use it as evidence.
As for regrouping and chasing him, that was also weak defense for arguing the stand your ground. This indicated that the immediate threat was over. They going after a weapon, instead they were retreating. Vang was now the immediate threat. This is why stand your ground won't help him.
Distance of the bodies shouldn't play a factor. A person could be 30 yards away and still be a danger.
Zimmerman stalked Martin and did not allow Martin to walk away. He was also the only one armed. Zimmerman was the initial offender. He wasn't completely defensive. Moreover, Zimmerman only got off because the DA wanted murder when it should have been manslaughter.
Being defensive is not a requirement for self-defense or obligation to retreat.
Yes, there is no evidence of who shot first. Thus, reasonable doubt. Vang was consistent in his testimony, but the white hunters were not. There is more reason to believe that Vang was more honest than the white hunters.
Vang could argue that the immediate threat was not over after the first few hunters went down. You believe that the immediate threat was over when the white hunters ran away. However, I believe it is possible to make at least one juror to reasonably doubt that. It's possible to make one juror reasonably believe that the ground Vang was standing on was dangerous.
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.
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.
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.
Inconclusive scenarios and evidence is always in the favor of the defendant.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :2funny: :idiot2: ;D
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.
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.
:2funny: :idiot2:
And how do you go about convincing someone that there is reasonable doubt that Chai Vang is not guilty of 1st degree intentional homicide?
He shot people in the back. Please explain an alternative. The white people are very good at shooting while facing their backs to their target? :2funny:
He shot some victims multiple times. Please explain an alternative. Were those super serum soldiers that even when shot, continued to get up and keep fighting? :2funny:
He didn't attempt to call police, notify his other friends, or signal for help from other people in the area. Please explain an alternative. He was called chink and gook and was shot at by 6 armed white hunters but he stayed so calm in order to avoid being judged in a white people's county even though he was the self-defense Hmong hero of the century? :2funny:
If you could explain this case to some rainforest aboriginal who has no interest in either side, and he/she had reasonable doubt that this was not a case of some guy who snapped and intended to kill everyone in sight, I will eat horse shit at St. Paul Xcel Center Hmong Year for the world to fukken see.
So how did the 1:12 odds work out in the Zimmerman trial where he even admitted to chasing down Trayvon into an enclosed area along with 911 call with the operator yelling "Don't follow him!"? Let's be reminded that it is actually 1:14 odd because there are always two juror who are backups and are not revealed until deliberation in the case that one "real" juror cannot continue. Yeah. Great odds! O0
Dodging the question. Go do your homework. Come back with the new evidence or present new fact and if you can convince the PH community, the PH community will raise hell and money to get the brother out. If you can't even start there, then I guess you are just like us...you don't support CV because support actually means to put work and effort into something.
CV is in jail and the problem is over for him at least. I feel bad for the families of all involved. Let's not pick on an old wound if we are not going to do something about it. The wound might get infected and fester. Something I was taught growing up.
However, a person probably should look back on it simply to get a better understand and perspective. It's about personal growth. Looking back on the Chai Vang case is more of a community growth. As individuals, as a community, and as a society, we should look back at tragic events. We should look back at Hiroshima. We should look back at the Holocaust. We should look back at 17th century scholars and what they thought of a flat earth. :2funny:
What needed to be learned from this situation was lost. This whole situation would've never happened had Chai Vang stayed put on public hunting grounds. This is a huge FUKKEN problem within the Hmong community. Instead of accepting it, all Hmong people wanted to say was "Don't stereotype us! We don't all do it!" The fact is, that Hmong only make up 1% of the total Minnesota and Wisconsin population but we account for WAAAAAAAAAAYYY Y fukken more game poaching and trespassing than a people who are only 60,xxx population in Minnesota! It's alot like black people only make up 5% of the Minnesota population but accounts for an insane amount of muggings, batteries, robberies, gang activity, unnecessary welfare recipient, drugs, etc., but every black person is like "Yo yo yo yo that ain't me! Don't say all black people are like that!" Well you fukken dumbshit, white people make 80% of the population and you do more bad shit than they do even though you are only 5% - what does that tell you? THAT THERE'S A FUKKEN PROBLEM IN THE COMMUNITY AND YOU NEED TO FIX IT AND TO FIRST FIX IT YOU NEED TO ADMIT THERE'S A FUKKEN PROBLEM.
Meanwhile, everyone just keeps focusing on "B,b,b,b,b,b,but what about the white people's actions? Why didn't they approach him differently!? Why did they call him a gook and chink?!" Awwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwww your wittle feelings hurt? Awwwwwwwww you gonna cwwwwy because white man told you have small peenis? YOU FUKKEN TRESPASSED BIITCH!!! YOU DROPPED THE FIRST DOMINO ON THIS WHOLE CAUSE-AND-EFFECT SITUATION. IF I HAD LAND AND HMONG PEOPLE TRESPASS, I'LL CHEW YOUR haha ASS OUT TOOO AND YOU'LL PROBABLY KILL MY FAMILY TOO YOU FUKKEN MONKEY BARBARIAN PEOPLE.
You just look at this situation and use it as a satisfaction for your wittle ego that was hurt by white man. Please don't make it seem like you're the unbiased, objective person here. You're embarrassing yourself. And the white people, they are fukkked up as much as the rest of you. They never took this situation and realized that they need to change as a community; that you can't just be a nice person to your little 10,000 population county but be a dipshiit to everyone outside even if they are from a different race and breaking the law on your property.
THAT THERE'S A FUKKEN PROBLEM IN THE COMMUNITY AND YOU NEED TO FIX IT AND TO FIRST FIX IT YOU NEED TO ADMIT THERE'S A FUKKEN PROBLEM.
Meanwhile, everyone just keeps focusing on "B,b,b,b,b,b,but what about the white people's actions? Why didn't they approach him differently!? Why did they call him a gook and chink?!" Awwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwww your wittle feelings hurt? ...YOU FUKKEN TRESPASSED BIITCH!!! YOU DROPPED THE FIRST DOMINO ON THIS WHOLE CAUSE-AND-EFFECT SITUATION. IF I HAD LAND AND HMONG PEOPLE TRESPASS, I'LL CHEW YOUR haha ASS OUT TOOO AND YOU'LL PROBABLY KILL MY FAMILY TOO YOU FUKKEN MONKEY BARBARIAN PEOPLE.
The punk kid (has a face which invites a brick) who blocked Chai's escape route deserved it.
If I was in Chai's situation, I'd probably mow them all down too. Yes, even a few bullets through the backs. Why? Well because,,,
Lastly, didn't realize there were this many White apologists/Hmong-self-haters around. Maybe the argument against certain posters have polarized their stances, but sheesh, still the tone is cringe worthy.
YeejKoob13 is my 1/12 jurors. You fall with the other 11 jurors, and that is fine. You may convince 92% of the people to agree with you. I only need one to win the debate.
A mixed race jury may have came out with a different decision. And even if found guilty, may have opted for a lesser sentence.
Thank you for proving my point. So he deserved it because he looked a certain way? And so what if he chest-puffed and tried to block Chai on his way out? Someone come on my property that I loaned $140,000 to buy my house and pay $950 monthly mortgage, I'll make sure to let you know it's the last time you come on my property unannounced and without permission. Oh, if that was you on my house, you want to shoot me, yeejkoob, don't you? You people as well as the dumb white people doesn't get shit done.
Dumb fukken white people: "Get the fukk of my property, [insert racial slur]. You don't deserve to be in my country."
Dumb fukken Hmong people: "Good Chai Vang killed them. I would do the same. Fukk these white people."
It's a fukken perfect circle. You people are perfect for each other!
So a Hmong guy shoots people in the back, shoots people multiple times, while he himself has ZERO fukken damage, not even a scratch, I'm supposed to take his side and if I don't, I'm a sellout? Wait for it...
:2funny: :idiot2: :P O0 ;D :D :2funny: :idiot2: >:D
No. A juror is fair and impartial. This fool would never be selected for jury and the prosecutors and the judge would read through his mind like a child's book. He wouldn't get to sit in the final 14 bench. Read above. This guy states that he would kill all of them and shoot them in the back. Does this sound like fair and impartial? Does this sound like a decent person? All you did was found a yelping moronic dog to follow you around. You two now have a combined IQ of 2. If I found a homeless bum with sandals on one feet and a ripped sock on the other, does that make us a basketball team? :2funny: :idiot2:
If you guys are too retarded, a pool of about 30 potential jurors are selected for interview and then only 14 are selected and then 12 for deliberation). I've been a juror in a criminal case (2nd degree murder while committing aggravated robbery) and believe me when I say before you even go the the courthouse, they already looked up your social security number, criminal/offense history, work history, education, etc. And the judge and the state attorneys can take out any juror for ANY reason without explanation. Oh, and the interviews happen in the presence of everyone so good lucky trying to lie in front of 40-50 people including the defendant, judge, and state attorneys. Hope you are a good liar.
Thank you for proving my point. So he deserved it because he looked a certain way? And so what if he chest-puffed and tried to block Chai on his way out? Someone come on my property that I loaned $140,000 to buy my house and pay $950 monthly mortgage, I'll make sure to let you know it's the last time you come on my property unannounced and without permission. Oh, if that was you on my house, you want to shoot me, yeejkoob, don't you? You people as well as the dumb white people doesn't get shit done.
You found another buffoon who likes to play with dogshit. Congrats! Meanwhile, the rest of the world has this thing called common sense. :2funny:
Like I said, your one guy you found isn't too bright. I'm not sure what you're proud off.
You found another buffoon who likes to play with dogshit. Congrats! Meanwhile, the rest of the world has this thing called common sense. :2funny:
Like I said, your one guy you found isn't too bright. I'm not sure what you're proud off.
Morons Who Hero Worship Chai Vang = HmiggasYeejkob, an advice my friend. Delete what you wrote. It's not good for you.
Morons Who Hero Worship Chai Vang = Hmiggas
I grew up in an environment where there were teenagers were a lot like Chai Vang. I can still recall when I heard my best friend's brother, shot up 3 white boys because they called him racism name. He's lucky he was a juvinile and only stayed in until he was 25 years old. He's probably more lucky that the judicial systems 20 years ago was more relax. Today, he'll be locked in for life. I can recall when I heard my Uncle shot up a gang rival and he was in the slammer until he was 25 years old. Same, this was 15 years ago. I know kids who are dead because of the same stupid mentality that Chai Vang breeds.
Some of you are complete idiots. Ya'll mofos never walked one day the life of a gang-associated ghetto-ass kid, who have to duck and run, take the long way home to avoid the block of the other grew, or the other minority crew, or being chased by stoners, VLR, 13, LK, and all the other bullshit Hmong gangs, etc... Their mentality is exactly Chai Vang. One look in his eyes and you know he has that fearless killer instincts. Fearless killer instincts is good when use for the good of humanity, but when held by some guy like Chai Vang who can't keep his emotions in check, he's a loose cannon and that's why there are many dead people.
If you can raise your hand and say this is the type of people you want to be championing, then by all means, keep being Hmiggas. Chai Vang is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Only Hmiggas cannot see that. Only Hmiggas think Chai Vang is a hero. He's not a hero. All you mofos only want to make him a hero because he does thing you hmiggas are too afraid to do, or wish you had the balls to do.
Quit hero worshiping CV. He's no Hmong hero. If you want a Hero talk to your teachers and professors. They are real hero. Needless to say, I'm done talking to these Hmiggas about this.
Yeejkob, an advice my friend. Delete what you wrote. It's not good for you.
Too late. I already quoted his asss O0 and I won't be editing my posts even if his momma shows up at the door with a boiled chicken.
And this bulbasaur thinks I'm mad :2funny:
Oh, I'm pretty riled up. I have always been riled up since that Chai Vang incident and especially when I hear people say "Those white people deserve it" or "I would've done the same". Remember, Hmong got raped a million times worse by the hands of the opposing side in the Vietnam War. Every time you think "These white people deserve it", remember that some Vietnamese and Laotian pro-communist supporter always says the same thing, that we fukken mountain shitheaad Hmong fukken deserved it.
But don't think for a second that I'm mad at your, bulbasaur. Anyone reading this thread can see that I am way ahead of you and that you're nothing but someone who got picked on or was called names by whites, you couldn't stand up for yourself or didn't have the courage to brush it off, and you wish you could've did what Chai Vang did. You're just a hateful wittle person with a wittle ego who is angry because the white man said you gooks have wittle penises. You're nothing to me, kiddo. You and your new pal :2funny: stupid is as stupid does.
I only need one, and I got it. It doesn't matter what you think of that person; it proves me right.
...but you are fooling yourself if you believe everyone agrees with you. You have a better chance with hypothetical aliens. :2funny:
So where is Chai Vang? Please remind me? I mean, if people are so against my train of thought, Chai Vang would've had a mistrial multiple times. I even explained the criminal case I was a juror on to highlight to you that people aren't as dumb as you and yeejkoob. Yet, you just kept saying "What's your case got to do with anything?" Well, let me explain again, dumb ass. No gun was ever found. No witness ever saw the murder and robbery happen. No one admitted to anything. There was no direct evidence that the crime ever even happened. But people aren't as dumb as your 1:12 bullshit theory. We all saw what happened from a mile away and we found him guilty. This is the same fukken shit with Chai Vang. Only a dumb fukk who masturbates to Chai Vang's photo would not see this case for what it truly is; some jackasss couldn't take some harsh words, planned to kill everyone in sight, and almost got away with it.
You just mad that my point is proven correct. :2funny:
Oh, did you perform a mock trial with pretend jurors who have never heard of the Chai Vang case, in which he didn't take the stand, and it came out a mistrial or not guilty verdict? :2funny: :idiot2: ;D
All you did was found another buffoon who fits your image. You didn't prove anything. This isn't a jury setting or a mock trial. This is a public forum. All kinds of people roam this forum including dumbasses. So if I find someone who agrees that Bigfoot is real, then my point is proven? If I find someone who agrees that fire hydrants are Gods, my point is proven?
But I don't expect a God-worshipper like yourself to be reasonable and logical. You believe...in a dude up in the clouds and you found others that believe the same way. THerefore, your point is proven! There is a God!
:2funny: :idiot2: O0
Keep on hero worshiping. Someone should modify this picture with CV so we know it's hero worship. It's OK to be blinded to reality. When I was young, I did not realize how little I knew. It's a process to develop.
(http://i.imgur.com/xTV1P.jpg)
If you're just replying to prove who's the idiot then congratulate you on adding the I-D-I-O-T genius to your hmigger resume aite?...dogmai aka Hmigger-I genius.
So what is the topic of the thread? The topic revisits the case after the Zimmerman case and if Vang never took the stand.
Name-calling doesn't support you.
Your presumptions were wrong once. What makes you think they are correct this time?
You just mad that my point is proven correct. :2funny:
Do you have any proof that wouldn't sway the outcome? Fact is that is purely your personal assumption and nothing more.
Chai stated they look like they were scattering to gather something so he charged towards the atv, if he's honest then its plausible an act to prevent matter worse for himself and unlikely ones to initiate the shooting, for those reason many of us felt his testimony has been ignored or the word used to condemn him is unproven or doesn't fit the reason behind his action.
Last I checked the white people approach him with racial slur and open fire on him while he walks away.
u had problem for taking words too literally, those were completely unrelated situations and by 'other' in this topic referring to Meskas.
Don't know the full story but if you're Hmong then you know the mentality of Hmong people, especially as a Minority with no Country. Hmong will never barge into others to cause any unnecessary trouble and any animals if cornered to the extreme would bite back.
Chai stated they look like they were scattering to gather something so he charged towards the atv, if he's honest then its plausible an act to prevent matter worse for himself and unlikely ones to initiate the shooting...
23-year-old Do Thao of Milwaukee is now charged with two counts of first-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon for his alleged role in the shooting deaths of two people near 51st and Lisbon on Friday, July 25th. The victims are identified as Beelee Chang and Jack Yang.
WTF? you need a memory refreshment? who's post is this in the first place!? :2funny:... :idiot2:
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.
^ ::) here it is again trying to redeem himself after wrongfully interpreting my word to crown himself an I-D-I-O-T-genius on here. :2funny: keep ranting if that makes you feel better freaken i-diot.
u had problem for taking words too literally, those were completely unrelated situations and by 'other' in this topic referring to Meskas.
^^AAhh!!!...now I see your source of sufffering, my word in bold nailed you SO DANG HARD AND DEEP in the a-nus you gotta crawl out of your closet to personally attack me out of the blue in the first place? Gotchaaa. ;D
^And here's an I-D-I-O-T ...+ Hmigger. :idiot2:
And what’s up with u constantly modifying your word?! If you’re going to post keep it original.
Don't know the full story but if you're Hmong then you know the mentality of Hmong people, especially as a Minority with no Country. Hmong will never barge into others to cause any unnecessary trouble and any animals if cornered to the extreme would bite back.
u had problem for taking words too literally, those were completely unrelated situations and by 'other' in this topic referring to Meskas.
^ ::) here it is again trying to redeem himself after wrongfully interpreting my word to crown himself an I-D-I-O-T-genius on here.
You fukken sore-loser buffoons. Doesn't matter if this trial was done in Hayward, WI or Los Angeles county. Hell, you could put this fiasco in any Hawaii county and Samoa Joe's would find Chai Vang guilty as a kid with cookie crumbs all over his shirt. You've got to be one dumb fukk to think otherwise that somehow, intelligent, good citizens chosen to be jurors would somehow translate [Chai Vang shot multiple victims in the back], killing 6 and wounding 2 others, while receiving ZERO damage, as some sort of justified act of self-defense.