PebHmong Discussion Forum
General Category => Debate Central => Topic started by: bulbasaur on June 23, 2016, 07:41:23 PM
-
Here is a list of what went wrong with the case....
1. Dylan Yang should have never talked to the police.
You should NEVER talk to the police if you are the suspect, especially if you are arrested. The lawyer should have never let Dylan talk. Nothing good can come from talking to the police. In fact, it is stated clearly in the Miranda Rights: Anything you say may be used against you in court. No where in the Miranda Rights does it say it will ever help you. Any lawyer that lets you talk to police is a sh!t lawyer. Unfortunately, the sh!tiness of this lawyer continued throughout the entire case. Someone should have told the family to get a new lawyer from near the start of all of this.
Also, whatever Dylan said to the police should have been barred. Did he really understand his rights? Studies have shown that kids do not really understand the rights read to them, and they waive them at a much higher rate than adults.
The saddest part of all of this, I heard that the shi!t lawyer wants to run for public office. WTH?
-
Bulb- You are correct, Dylan should not have spoken to the police. Dylan, didn't know or understand what his Miranda rights were and lastly, on a Proficiency Standards test on a scale of 1 thru 6, 1 being not in command of the English language and 6 meaning in command and fully understanding, Dylan is barely at a 3.
And yes, his lawyer was running for office and lost the same week he lost Dylan's case.
We have high hopes for his new Lawyer.
-
This should be the main focus of all his supporters. Not the self defense. Not the Castle Doctrine. And not even the bullying.
-
2. Dylan's case should have been moved because he probably couldn't get a fair trial in that area.
Without looking it up, I am going to guess that his jury is mostly white. I would really be surprised it if wasn't. I am sure someone here has the information. Anyways....
The case should have been moved because of the history the community has had. There have been negative local depictions of the Hmong in the news for years. Everything from Chai Vang to Do Thao to more. When the assertion that Dylan was in a gang was made, a lot people (especially non-Hmong people) didn't even blink an eye. They were like, "Yup. Sounds about right." Turns out he wasn't in a gang.
Did Dylan's sh!tty lawyer even try that hard to move the trial?
-
3. Dylan's lawyers should have focused on the charges.
Dylan was accused of reckless homicide, which insinuates that he knowingly committed the murder. This is the reason why the state was pro-active on establishing that the gun was "just a BB gun." If Dylan's lawyer wasn't so sh!tty, he would have picked up on this. Dylan is guilty of something, but not reckless homicide. This is more involuntary manslaughter than reckless homicide. There is enough proof here for this: They drove over. They brought a gun. They started fighting. They shot the gun. Has Dylan ever seen a gun before? He probably thought it was a real gun. He went all the way into the house. Came back out. The other guy was STILL fighting. Dylan himself said he just wanted to help his friend.
Damn, that wasn't enough for the lawyer to argue that Dylan was "not guilty" of the charge of reckless homicide? Zimmerman got off because the DA tried to get him for 2nd degree murder, and Zimmerman followed the the unarmed kid. That lawyer only needed a couple of bruises to get Zimmerman a "not guilty" verdict. Of course, it helps to be white-ish and your victim to be a minority.
-
3. Dylan's lawyers should have focused on the charges.
Dylan was accused of reckless homicide, which insinuates that he knowingly committed the murder. This is the reason why the state was pro-active on establishing that the gun was "just a BB gun." If Dylan's lawyer wasn't so sh!tty, he would have picked up on this. Dylan is guilty of something, but not reckless homicide. This is more involuntary manslaughter than reckless homicide. There is enough proof here for this: They drove over. They brought a gun. They started fighting. They shot the gun. Has Dylan ever seen a gun before? He probably thought it was a real gun. He went all the way into the house. Came back out. The other guy was STILL fighting. Dylan himself said he just wanted to help his friend.
Damn, that wasn't enough for the lawyer to argue that Dylan was "not guilty" of the charge of reckless homicide? Zimmerman got off because the DA tried to get him for 2nd degree murder, and Zimmerman followed the the unarmed kid. That lawyer only needed a couple of bruises to get Zimmerman a "not guilty" verdict. Of course, it helps to be white-ish and your victim to be a minority.
People should just focus on the main facts from the time the mother/adult drove those boys over and all this shit happens. A real or fake gun, all that fighting, etc. is going to be expected and unexpected circumstances that take places in those quick moment........ ..... There is no time to think but act quickly.
-
One thing that is hilarious: how the hell Isiah (white kid) knows where Dylan lives? :2funny:
-
Cases like this take place in county or state courts. It doesn't matter which county you go to - you'll never get a "fair" race distribution because we don't have an equal race distribution here in the US. In fact, it would be illegal and unethical to force a jury which didn't reflect the overall population distribution. For example, white people make up over 70% of the US population and in nearly every county and state, white people are the overwhelming majority. Can you imagine the shi!tstorm if a court and/or judge purposely made a jury to be made up of mostly blacks, non-white Hispanics, Asians, and all non-whites? There would be hundreds of thousands of inmates crying for a re-trial.
This talk of an "unfair" trial makes the presumption that all white people are secretively in a union to make sure all non-whites are guilty. This is ignorant, absurd, and untrue. I looked up the census and Wausau alone is over 30,000 white people. Believe me when I say white people do not look at other white people as brothers and sisters. Just look at your own workplace and tell me how many white folks dislike other white folks and stomp on each other to get a promotion.
-
*yawns* Let's tear this apart....
1. You wrote, "For example, white people make up over 70% of the US population and in nearly every county and state, white people are the overwhelming majority." So there should have been 3 minorities on the jury, but there wasn't. Heck, there should have at least been 1, but none?
2. You wrote, "This talk of an "unfair" trial makes the presumption that all white people are secretively in a union to make sure all non-whites are guilty." No. This talk of an unfair trial is because of many other factual reasons. For example, the people in that community have been exposed to a certain image of minorities. When the accusation that Dylan was in a gang was brought up, no one blinked an eye despite the fact that he was not in a gang.
3. The unfairness of this trial goes beyond just the jury selection.
Your argument here makes as much sense as your argument against gays....which is none.
Cases like this take place in county or state courts. It doesn't matter which county you go to - you'll never get a "fair" race distribution because we don't have an equal race distribution here in the US. In fact, it would be illegal and unethical to force a jury which didn't reflect the overall population distribution. For example, white people make up over 70% of the US population and in nearly every county and state, white people are the overwhelming majority. Can you imagine the shi!tstorm if a court and/or judge purposely made a jury to be made up of mostly blacks, non-white Hispanics, Asians, and all non-whites? There would be hundreds of thousands of inmates crying for a re-trial.
This talk of an "unfair" trial makes the presumption that all white people are secretively in a union to make sure all non-whites are guilty. This is ignorant, absurd, and untrue. I looked up the census and Wausau alone is over 30,000 white people. Believe me when I say white people do not look at other white people as brothers and sisters. Just look at your own workplace and tell me how many white folks dislike other white folks and stomp on each other to get a promotion.
-
Most likely, Dylan's is going to prison for decades. The trial is already over. No new evidence is being discovered. His only way out is a re-trial due to the incompetence of his lawyer, which is going to be hard.
So what is going on with this case now and what do you think will happen?
-
A bb gun is not a fake gun. A bb gun is not a toy. The jury is not stupid, yet they will let you believe they think the bbgun was not a real gun. Are we too blind to see that he was considered guilty not because the Jury was stupid but because he was not white?
-
Ray of light, I suppose. I'm surprised this comment isn't mentioned in regards to Dylan's case. Is it cause enough to ask for a mistrial? That's the impression I get from his lawyer's own words.
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/story/news/2016/05/13/dylan-yang-lawyer-hopes-retrial/84276916/ (http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/story/news/2016/05/13/dylan-yang-lawyer-hopes-retrial/84276916/)
Excerpt-
Kronenwetter, who had represented Yang since March 2015, said Thursday he could not comment on the specific reasons for the change of attorneys. Yang's family "hired another attorney. That's all I can say," Kronenwetter said. However, he said he hoped that his performance would be closely scrutinized and found ineffective because that could "overturn the conviction and get a new trial for Dylan. ... I still, 100 percent, to this day, believe in Dylan's innocence. I believe his actions were in self defense."
-
The reason why it is a long shot for Dylan to get a re-trial due to lawyer incompetence.. .
The judge doesn't need anyone to tell him/her to deem a lawyer incompetent. Even in such an event, the judge might still not order a re-trial. He might just verbally reprimand the lawyer. In Dylan's case, nothing happened during the case, which means the judge thought everything was just fine. Sad but true.
So where is the long shot? The appellate court. His new lawyers' strategy should be to sue the shi!t out of his old lawyers, and make it into a public display. Dylan's first lawyer was running for public office; that's at least a breach of fiduciary duty, and that is not to bring up any negligence accusations. If Dylan's new lawyers can do this, it will make their case in the appellate court easier. But, that is unlikely to happen. Lawyers take care of themselves. If they were gonna go that route, then they would have by now. September is around the corner.
My bet is that Dylan's new lawyers are going to try to argue that something went wrong in the trial, but that is even a longer shot. The first judge already "okay-ed" it, so convincing the next judge is even harder.
All that being said, people do sometimes hit those long shots.
-
So someone asked me, "Why are you more focused on the legal matters and not on the bullying or the community issues and etc etc...."
I don't have anything against the betterment of the community, but arguing that in court gives (would have given?) Dylan very little chance. The truth is that Dylan was already "socially guilty" before the case started. There was very little chance of winning the case on emotion because none of the jurors were going to feel apologetic for Dylan. It is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty," but we know the truth.
Instead, Dylan's best chance is (was?) to try to sway the jurors on their sense of duty. It's their duty, as proud Americans, to uphold integrity of this court. And that is to acknowledge that the police and DA mishandled the situation. And blah blah blah...
But even then, that was a long shot, but a long shot is better than no shot. Dylan's lawyer went for the no shot.
-
*yawns* Let's tear this apart....
1. You wrote, "For example, white people make up over 70% of the US population and in nearly every county and state, white people are the overwhelming majority." So there should have been 3 minorities on the jury, but there wasn't. Heck, there should have at least been 1, but none?
2. You wrote, "This talk of an "unfair" trial makes the presumption that all white people are secretively in a union to make sure all non-whites are guilty." No. This talk of an unfair trial is because of many other factual reasons. For example, the people in that community have been exposed to a certain image of minorities. When the accusation that Dylan was in a gang was brought up, no one blinked an eye despite the fact that he was not in a gang.
3. The unfairness of this trial goes beyond just the jury selection.
Your argument here makes as much sense as your argument against gays....which is none.
If you place 100 balls into a jar - colored 70 white, 10 black, 10 brown, 10 yellow - and you mix them all up and randomly pull out 10 balls, you're not going to get exactly 7 whites, 1 black, 1 brown, and 1 yellow. That's just the statistics on paper. In reality, chances are, you're going to get something like 8-9 white balls and 1 of the other most of the times and it wouldn't be uncommon to get all 10 balls to be white because the odds for white balls. If you used your brain and whatever intelligence you have and you looked up Marathon County, according to 2010 and 2015 census, Marathon County is over 90% white, 5% asian, and less than 1% black/Mexican. It would be very common to always have a jury pool made up of nearly all, if not all, white people. But according to you, this is unfair because white people can't be trusted. Because you believe white people are innately racist and unfair. But you won't admit your bias, ignorance, and out-of-touch with reality.
But common sense and logic probably doesn't go well with you. Seeing as how you are throwing the race card (and gay card) around like you are a ref of game 6 of NBA finals, I wouldn't expect anything else out of you other than "Man! They was white! That's why Dylan is guilty!" You sit behind a PC and presume to know all of the evidence and testimonies that were presented to the jurors as if you were there during the trial. None of us were but you speak as if the jury came in to court every morning telling themselves "I'm putting this chink away for life!"
You are the same people who believe Chai Vang is innocent. People like you hold us Hmong people back.
-
hahahahaha. Oh wait, were you serious? :2funny:
If you place 100 balls into a jar - colored 70 white, 10 black, 10 brown, 10 yellow - and you mix them all up and randomly pull out 10 balls, you're not going to get exactly 7 whites, 1 black, 1 brown, and 1 yellow. That's just the statistics on paper. In reality, chances are, you're going to get something like 8-9 white balls and 1 of the other most of the times and it wouldn't be uncommon to get all 10 balls to be white because the odds for white balls. If you used your brain and whatever intelligence you have and you looked up Marathon County, according to 2010 and 2015 census, Marathon County is over 90% white, 5% asian, and less than 1% black/Mexican. It would be very common to always have a jury pool made up of nearly all, if not all, white people. But according to you, this is unfair because white people can't be trusted. Because you believe white people are innately racist and unfair. But you won't admit your bias, ignorance, and out-of-touch with reality.
But common sense and logic probably doesn't go well with you. Seeing as how you are throwing the race card (and gay card) around like you are a ref of game 6 of NBA finals, I wouldn't expect anything else out of you other than "Man! They was white! That's why Dylan is guilty!" You sit behind a PC and presume to know all of the evidence and testimonies that were presented to the jurors as if you were there during the trial. None of us were but you speak as if the jury came in to court every morning telling themselves "I'm putting this chink away for life!"
You are the same people who believe Chai Vang is innocent. People like you hold us Hmong people back.
-
hahahahaha. Oh wait, were you serious? :2funny:
Oh wait, you have no response? I wouldn't expect anything more. When people laugh, they've run out of ideas and they're cornered. It's like boxers who get hit hard but they pretend to smile like "That's it?!" because they know they got rocked but don't want to show it.
Hurry up and get your moderator butt pals to erase my posts. That's been happening quite a bit here in 2016 so I'm expecting another round of my post deletions.
-
hahahaha. So you were serious. :2funny:
It is not worth to rebuttal you because you lacked reading comprehension. YOU don't understand the situation, and YOU are making all sorts of absurd claims. It's just too easy to prove you wrong. But since you want a beat down, here it goes...
1. Your math is all wrong. I'd explain why, but if you couldn't get this down, you wouldn't understand the explaination either. Plus, your math contradicts itself. Plus, even if we took your math at its value, it doesn't support you. Re-read what you wrote, "In reality, chances are, you're going to get something like 8-9 white balls and 1 of the other most of the times..." The jury was all white. You admit that the chances are that there should have been 1 minority on the jury. Thus, you admit that I am right. Why you mad? :2funny:
2. So let's look at your other claim, "...it wouldn't be uncommon to get all 10 balls to be white because the odds for white balls." The chances of getting all 10 balls (jurors) by chance is possible. However, you forget that jury selection is not just by chance. The jury pool is by chance, but the judge and/or attorneys can challenge the selection of the jurors. This is where the unfairness comes in. The judge and/or attorneys approved of the jurors before the trial. Dylan's attorneys should have challenged.
3. You wrote, "Because you believe white people are innately racist and unfair..." Here is where your lack of reading comprehension comes in. I actually wrote, "For example, the people in that community have been exposed to a certain image of minorities. When the accusation that Dylan was in a gang was brought up, no one blinked an eye despite the fact that he was not in a gang." I didn't say they were racist. The community simply has preconceptions and emotions related to the situation.
4. You wrote, "You are the same people who believe Chai Vang is innocent." Who said he was innocent? Once again, reading comprehension.
See how easy it was to rebuttal you? It's not a challenge.
Oh wait, you have no response? I wouldn't expect anything more. When people laugh, they've run out of ideas and they're cornered. It's like boxers who get hit hard but they pretend to smile like "That's it?!" because they know they got rocked but don't want to show it.
Hurry up and get your moderator butt pals to erase my posts. That's been happening quite a bit here in 2016 so I'm expecting another round of my post deletions.
-
...However, you forget that jury selection is not just by chance. The jury pool is by chance, but the judge and/or attorneys can challenge the selection of the jurors. This is where the unfairness comes in. The judge and/or attorneys approved of the jurors before the trial. Dylan's attorneys should have challenged.
The district attorneys and the defendant's attorney(s) cannot challenge the selection of jurors like it's a board game. Both sides can question the jurors of usually about 30-40 people before the final 12 (actually in Ramsey County, MN, 13 total, just in case someone gets ill or can't continue) are paneled.
The sides choose jurors like it's a pick-up basketball game. After public questioning, both sides submit their lists to the judge and they have their equal turn at selecting jurors. The actual juror selection challenging is limited and has to be approved by the judge. Attorney's cannot start asking for a new turn or whine like it's a game of Monopoly. In fact, challenges don't happen all that often because in the world of judicial law, challenging another attorney's selection is like telling your co-worker how to do their job - it had better be a damn good reason or every attorney in the county will despise you.
The only times attorneys really challenge juror selection is like, for example, defendant side questions a juror about his family history and knows that his family has been arrested a lot and hates cops, and they choose him. Then the prosecution side could challenge to the judge that defendant attorneys are selecting that jury because he/she has a bias towards law enforcement. But here's the thing: attorneys and judges aren't stupid. If they see anyone talking dumb, even if that person will help their case, they won't touch them.
I think you watch these law movies about racism and you believes that's how real-life court is. You're convinced that Jasper, Earl, Trevor, Bobby Jo, Buddy Lee, Harley, and Gator, all cousins and brothers at the same time, are coming to a jury bench near you today. Get to reality, dude. We all know everyone has bias but this isn't 1800s railroad building times anymore.
Your thinking is flawed because if you believe that the prosecution side will choose 6 jurors who hate non-whites, then wouldn't you also believe that the defendant side will nullify that by selecting 6 immigrant-loving, Christian-hating, America-hating liberal yuppies? Mind you, this is just for example. As I have said, attorneys and judges aren't dumb and will not allow a court room to turn into race wars made for television.
You only see one side. You are truly bias. You only see the prosecution side as the evil side and that they are bending the laws in order to have 12 jurors on their side.
-
hahahaah. Stick your gay hating. You are better off with your blind hatred than trying to make a comprehensive point.
The district attorneys and the defendant's attorney(s) cannot challenge the selection of jurors like it's a board game. Both sides can question the jurors of usually about 30-40 people before the final 12 (actually in Ramsey County, MN, 13 total, just in case someone gets ill or can't continue) are paneled.
The sides choose jurors like it's a pick-up basketball game. After public questioning, both sides submit their lists to the judge and they have their equal turn at selecting jurors. The actual juror selection challenging is limited and has to be approved by the judge. Attorney's cannot start asking for a new turn or whine like it's a game of Monopoly. In fact, challenges don't happen all that often because in the world of judicial law, challenging another attorney's selection is like telling your co-worker how to do their job - it had better be a damn good reason or every attorney in the county will despise you.
The only times attorneys really challenge juror selection is like, for example, defendant side questions a juror about his family history and knows that his family has been arrested a lot and hates cops, and they choose him. Then the prosecution side could challenge to the judge that defendant attorneys are selecting that jury because he/she has a bias towards law enforcement. But here's the thing: attorneys and judges aren't stupid. If they see anyone talking dumb, even if that person will help their case, they won't touch them.
I think you watch these law movies about racism and you believes that's how real-life court is. You're convinced that Jasper, Earl, Trevor, Bobby Jo, Buddy Lee, Harley, and Gator, all cousins and brothers at the same time, are coming to a jury bench near you today. Get to reality, dude. We all know everyone has bias but this isn't 1800s railroad building times anymore.
Your thinking is flawed because if you believe that the prosecution side will choose 6 jurors who hate non-whites, then wouldn't you also believe that the defendant side will nullify that by selecting 6 immigrant-loving, Christian-hating, America-hating liberal yuppies? Mind you, this is just for example. As I have said, attorneys and judges aren't dumb and will not allow a court room to turn into race wars made for television.
You only see one side. You are truly bias. You only see the prosecution side as the evil side and that they are bending the laws in order to have 12 jurors on their side.
-
hahahaah. Stick your gay hating. You are better off with your blind hatred than trying to make a comprehensive point.
You know I'm right. That's why you've got nothing else to say but "go away". I'm sure you'll get your good buddy moderators to silence me again.
I've been part of the jury panel for a 2nd degree murder case. Everything that I have stated about the selection process has come out of the mouths of the attorneys, judges, and jury officials. I don't make stuff up like you do, trying to make it as if the judge lets the prosecuting DA's choose all 12 jury panel while the defense attorney sit there scratching their heads like some fake dramatic Hollywood law movie. Maybe if you stopped living in your mom's basement and get a driver's license, you might get put into a jury duty lottery and you can see for yourself how the jury selection process goes. But you probably won't get selected because unless you are a serial liar born with the ability to be able to look into people's eye and tell them a lie, they will probe you in front of your peer jurors and the judge and you'll eventually let it be known that you think Chai Vang is your hero.
-
*yawns* Tearing apart your "argument" is no fun. Your argument is incomplete and incompetent. For goodness sake, it even contradicts itself. There is no reason to take it seriously.
You know I'm right. That's why you've got nothing else to say but "go away". I'm sure you'll get your good buddy moderators to silence me again.
I've been part of the jury panel for a 2nd degree murder case. Everything that I have stated about the selection process has come out of the mouths of the attorneys, judges, and jury officials. I don't make stuff up like you do, trying to make it as if the judge lets the prosecuting DA's choose all 12 jury panel while the defense attorney sit there scratching their heads like some fake dramatic Hollywood law movie. Maybe if you stopped living in your mom's basement and get a driver's license, you might get put into a jury duty lottery and you can see for yourself how the jury selection process goes. But you probably won't get selected because unless you are a serial liar born with the ability to be able to look into people's eye and tell them a lie, they will probe you in front of your peer jurors and the judge and you'll eventually let it be known that you think Chai Vang is your hero.
-
And now this...
http://www.wsaw.com/content/news/County-Administrator-to-be-suspended-for-participating-in-Dylan-Yang-march-387638352.html (http://www.wsaw.com/content/news/County-Administrator-to-be-suspended-for-participating-in-Dylan-Yang-march-387638352.html)
Why do they keep referring to it as "gang." This is a case of bullying. Also, it's not really clear why the guy is being suspended. Odd. However, there is apparently a re-vote. Of course, why was it even an issue to begin with?
All of this, and it still won't help Dylan. September is around the corner.
-
So his first lawyer is being investigated, and his sentencing got pushed back. His new team needs to push hard on this. His only chance is to get a mistrial/re-trial. Dylan needs someone who isn't in on the lawyer bro-code. Or, people need to convince his first lawyer to give a public statement of incompetence or conflict of interest. It looks like he is going to lose his license anyways, so someone should convince him to help Dylan while he can. Where are those Hmong leaders when you need them?