Stand Your Ground: Chai Vang Case Revisited

[bulbasaur]

You mad? 

You found another buffoon who likes to play with dogshit. Congrats! Meanwhile, the rest of the world has this thing called common sense. 

Like I said, your one guy you found isn't too bright. I'm not sure what you're proud off.

[HUNG TU LO]

Morons Who Hero Worship Chai Vang = Hmiggas

Yeejkob, an advice my friend.  Delete what you wrote.  It's not good for you.

Too late. I already quoted his asss  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 

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  stupid is as stupid does.

[bulbasaur]

*yawns*  Only a Sith deals in absolutes.   

1.  You're off topic, as usual.  This thread is revisiting the case, not your personal beliefs on the events. 

2.  You list your personal experiences as reasons for your beliefs.  Did it occur to you that others would have different experiences that would lead them to their beliefs? 

3.  Just because people think Vang should not be guilty of all charges, that doesn't mean that they think he is a hero.  Again, only a Sith deals in absolutes.  To use a non-Hmong example: Zimmerman got off because he was not guilty of the charges,  which included first degree murder.  Zimmerman is most likely guilty of something, but first degree murder was presented.  Similarly, the same could be argued for Vang.   

4.  Name-calling still doesn't help your arguments.  Since I know how much you like metaphors, here is one for you, "A tiger doesn’t change his stripes."   Isn't it odd that you would advise people to change the contents of their threads, but you are name-calling in yours? 

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.

[bulbasaur]

You just mad that I was proven right.   

1.  I only need one, and I got it.  It doesn't matter what you think of that person; it proves me right. 

2.  I actually got more than one. 

3.  Your presumptions are killing your arguments.  You presume so many things about me, but you are actually wrong.  My childhood is near the opposite of your presumptions.  To make your presumptions completely wrong, I personally think Vang is guilty.  Your presumptions about me are completely wrong, so what makes you think that your presumptions about the case are any better? 

4.  You are welcomed to believe what you believe about the case, but you are fooling yourself if you believe everyone agrees with you.  You have a better chance with hypothetical aliens.   

Too late. I already quoted his asss  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 

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  stupid is as stupid does.

[HUNG TU LO]

I only need one, and I got it.  It doesn't matter what you think of that person; it proves me right. 

I never said you couldn't find one person to go with your claim. If I look hard enough, I can find one person who believes Big Foot is real. And your point is?

All you have is your belief that somehow, you can do a better job than professional attorneys who have years of experience. And somehow, you fantasize that you can personally talk to jurors just like in the movies. And yet, you still haven't provided an alternative to why Chai Vang shot people in the back and why he shot victims multiple times! If you can't even provide a plausible alternative explanation that is logical and reasonable as to why Chai Vang did these actions, you can't sway 1:1,000,000 jurors.

Here, quote the below and fill in the answer part, shitfacce:

CHAI VANG SHOT VICTIMS IN THE BACK. CHAI VANG SHOT VICTIMS MULTIPLE TIMES. CHAI VANG, HIMSELF, DID NOT SUSTAIN ANY INJURIES WHATSOEVER.

THESE INSTANCES ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF 1ST DEGREE MURDER BECAUSE...


(FILL IN YOUR SHIT HERE, SMART ASS)

Don't be mad if you can't fill in the answer. It's near-zero possibility to place an answer that would sway an objective, unbias juror. It is near-zero possibility and that is why Chai Vang is getting his ass pounded as we speak. An attorney with years of experience couldn't do it. So what makes you a special somebody? You're a nobody. You're shitt. It's like me sitting on the couch pouting why Miami Heat lost because if I was on the court, Spurs would shit their pants. Oh yeah, it's always easy behind the screen to claim you can do this and do that, isn't it?

[HUNG TU LO]

...but you are fooling yourself if you believe everyone agrees with you.  You have a better chance with hypothetical aliens.   

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.

[bulbasaur]

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.   

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.

[HUNG TU LO]

You just mad that my point is proven correct.   

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?     

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!

    

[bulbasaur]

*yawns*  You still mad that you want to still do this?

1.  How many of your arguments have you dropped because they were proven wrong?  Should we talk about your race of aliens again?  Or how about rain forest aboriginals?  Should we even mention the fact that you are ignoring the premise of the debate? 

2.  Insulting others still do not support you. 

3.  You are welcomed to believe what you want of Vang.   I believe there are people out there who disagree with you. 

4. Your presumptions about the case, the public, and myself make your arguments invalid.  Let's ignore the case right now.  Let's compare your argument and mine.  My arguments win simply because your arguments are based on several presumptions are that are clearly wrong.  If both our arguments were presented as the Vang case, my argument would win by default because your presumptions were wrong.  A person is likely to agree with my arguments simply because your arguments are flawed.  The person may not be fully convinced that my arguments are correct, but they know that your presumptions are wrong.  Reasonable doubt. 

If your presumptions about me were wrong, what makes you think you are correct now? 

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?     

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!

    

[bulbasaur]

I see things haven't changed much since your childhood.   

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.

[dogmai]

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.

Apparently that's what you just did. I'll let bulbasaur tell you something.

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.   

 

Do you have any proof that wouldn't sway the outcome? Fact is that is purely your personal assumption and nothing more.

You wrote that in regards to HTL's post. Let's see what's next?

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.

As a reminder, this is what you wrote earlier. Compare it with the first sentence above. What happened there? 

Last I checked the white people approach him with racial slur and open fire on him while he walks away.

Now for the last thing.

u had problem for taking words too literally, those were completely unrelated situations and by 'other' in this topic referring to Meskas.

You wrote that after I proved you wrong. Let's refresh your memory of what you said.

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.

Oh wait, after I proved you wrong with Hmong on Hmong violence, you decided to change the word "other" saying you were referring to "Meskas". Ok, I'll accept your pathetic attempt to redeem yourself this time. Let's replace the words.
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 Meskas to cause any unnecessary trouble and any animals if cornered to the extreme would bite back.


Read the article below. It's the article of the Sara Hougom homicide case. So according to you, Sara Hougom invited 19-year-old Kong Vue and 21-year-old Pao Choua Vue to her house to steal her purse, but ended up being cornered by the 21-year-old woman so they had to shoot her?
http://www.news8000.com/news/Arrests-made-in-Sara-Hougom-homicide-investigation/12375868

[HUNG TU LO]

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...

That was Chai's own perception which isn't good enough (to acquit). Which is why we have the rule of law, judge, and jury to decide if in fact, the killing was justified (because there was imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury).

Now you just opened up the Pandora's Box. So if I get in a shouting match with a guy because he cut me off on the road or if he bumped into my shoulder and he yells "I'm going to find your family and fukken kill you all!!!", well I should be able to shoot him dead right there! After all, I perceive threat! But we all know if I did shoot him for saying those words, that's 1st degree manslaughter (crime of passion, spur of the moment).


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.

[HUNG TU LO]

Hmong are a peaceful people that would never intrude on anyone and we pray and respect all living things?

            

HOLY FUKK this is less than 4 days old.

http://fox6now.com/2014/07/28/milwaukee-man-accused-of-shooting-killing-two-people-near-51st-and-lisbon/

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.

The victims were shot in their own vehicle. So I guess these two guys cornered this buffoon from their car seats XD HOLY SHIIIIT I'm cracking up here I may die of laughter.

[dogmai]

WTF? you need a memory refreshment? who's post is this in the first place!?  ...

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.

WTF? you need a memory refreshment? who's post is this in the first place!?  ...

^ 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.    keep ranting if that makes you feel better freaken i-diot. 

^ here it is again trying to redeem himself 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.

[dogmai]

^^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.

Hahaha.

You showed that you were hit hard by the Hmigger. You called others Hmigger while you were showing everyone that were one. I simply pointed that out. And what was your response?

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

You took it to the heart here. Looks like somebody can't handle the truth here.