Stand Your Ground: Chai Vang Case Revisited

[HUNG TU LO]

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.

[bulbasaur]

Actually, if you came across a race of aliens with no bias, they could conclude reasonable doubt in favor of Vang. 

1.  There is no doubt on the aggressiveness of Vang's actions.  The issue is whether or not his actions were justified.  Just because a person's intent is to kill, that doesn't automatically make the person guilty.  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. 

2.  Vang's claim that he was lost is not entirely untrue.  Vang claimed that he thought he was on public land, but he was actually on private land.  Thus, he is technically lost. 

3.  Vang was under no obligation to tell the other hunters what had happened.  For all that Vang knew at the time, they could have been friends of the white hunters.  Vang could argue that he still didn't feel safe.  Vang did not lie to the police.  In fact, I believe the police called him cooperative. 

If the jury was 12 unbiased aliens, and Vang actually had a good lawyer, the result might have been different.  Vang might have won a self-defense argument.  Or, Vang might have still been guilty, but maybe for manslaughter and not murder.  Or, Vang might have a lesser sentence.  Let's not forget, OJ and Zimmerman both got off. 

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.

[dogmai]

^And here's an I-D-I-O-T ...+ Hmigger. 

Don't get mad at others. You're the one who showed us that you're a Hmigger. I'm just stating the facts. I'll refresh your memory why you're an I-D-I-O-T...+ Hmigger.

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.

Just like a typical Hmigger. Always use the race card. Always want to be treated equally but when roles are reversed, they always blame it on the other race. The most notable example is your last sentence. I guess your definition of "equally be judged" is, blame it on the white people because the Hmong guy always have a justifiable cause.

The whole situation could've been avoided if they approached him politely and didn't use racial slurs. But that didn't happen and racial slurs isn't a justifiable reason to kill. You just proven that it wasn't self-defense, but retaliation.

, if Chai didn't came out the survivor its probably considered just a freak hunting accident and you Hmigger would easily believe it.

Proof that you're an idiot. Look at the Cha Vang murder case.

[dogmai]

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.

[bulbasaur]

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. 

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.

[dogmai]

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.

1.

2. I agree and disagree with this argument. With the evidence of the victims and Chai pursuing them, it clearly shows that he was the aggressor. I disagree with the intent to kill though. Intent to kill doesn't necessarily mean cold-blooded murder. Intent to kill can also be use for self-defense. However, evidence for this case shows that "intent to kill" wasn't for self-defense.

"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!!!!!!!!!!!""

- "SO YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SHOT MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY!!!!!" *BANG* You're dead.

"An innocent person has nothing to hide and would tell the truth immediately. When someone lies, they have a motive to lie."


Yes, and that motive would be to stay alive so they can call the police. That's why some witnesses are put into Witness Protection. According to the report, (as far as I can remember) there was no mentioning of evidence of Chai trying/was lying to the police.


3. This is arguable. First of all, not all who "distance themselves from the situation" are guilty. And second, it can be argue that Chai didn't distance himself of the situation. Obviously, he distanced himself from the scene,(the spot of the confrontation) but not the situation. He cooperated with the police. It is reasonable to distance oneself from the scene before notifying the police. In this case, the white people did distance themselves from the scene, whether it was for safety or re-grouping for retaliation, (no real confirmation) they fled the scene before calling the cops.

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.

[dogmai]

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. 

What I said above covers it.

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. 

What I said above covers it.

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. 

What I said above covers it.

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. 

What I said above covers it.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

[bulbasaur]

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. 

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.

[dogmai]

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.

If this true, then explain all those gang fights at New years and tournaments. Were all those gangsters cornered and had no other choice but to fight? What about those who instigated the fight? Did you think that they fought each other because they were cornered in by their rival gang on one side and the other sides by the innocent bystanders? Then how come you hardly see any non-members fight?

Anyone can say this about their people but it's not entirely true. One can generalize things about a certain group of people, good or bad, but that can't be accounted for every single person. I can easily say, "if you're Hmong then yous know the mentality of Hmong people, especially as a minority with no country. Hmong are quick to anger and show aggression over small things." Of course this isn't entirely true, not every single Hmong person is like that. In cases like this, one shouldn't be too quick to judge. One cannot be bias and expect to be treated equally.

[dogmai]

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.

[bulbasaur]

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."   

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.

[dogmai]

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."   

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.

[LaibLaus]

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.

1. Most were not a threat because they were shot from the back meaning they were running for their lives. Even if the guy did not admitted that some deserved to die because they called him names; it doesn't take a genius to see that the evidences do not support Chai's claim of self defense.

2. I said "if" but you knew better then to mouth off to a person who is armed.

[bulbasaur]

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. 

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.

[dogmai]

Distance of the bodies shouldn't play a factor.  A person could be 30 yards away and still be a danger. 

Read what I wrote above.

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. 

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.

Being defensive is not a requirement for self-defense or obligation to retreat. 

Read what I wrote above.

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. 

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

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. 

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.