# Chai Vang! Guilty!!!!!!!!



## Curtis

Ba$tard gets what he deserves. 6 COUNTS OF 1ST DEGREE MURDER, AND OTHER VARIOUS CHARGES!=LIFE! Still not a bad enough punishment for what he did.

Everyone be safe this year hunting, and keep a level head. I's be ticked if someone was tresspassing, but I suggest not being an @$$hole and just be plesant, and curtious. OR have the police/DNR present.

BE SAFE EVERYONE THIS HUNTING SEASON!! And make many memories and dreams come true!

Curtis


----------



## 870 XPRS

I'll try to be level headed I guess. If what he says really happend, he was still in the wrong. If he actually got shot at first why would he charge and kill 5 other people. Nevermind, i guess i'm not being neutral on this. The man did what no other man would do,,,slay people for no reason. I for one am saddened that the death peanalty is not in play here. I watched his siblings and family memebers cry tonight, but for what reason???? Cause he killed people that made him leave a territory where he was not welcom. The man deserves to die a miserable death, there is no way around it. I'll try to be as politcally correct as I can be here,,,, I hope he gets the @#[email protected] b#@4r3 and r#@!#$ out of him in jail.


----------



## Curtis

Yeah I did not side witrh Vang at all, and I dont believe he was shot at. Its all B.S. He even said he shot them all in the back, and he said they all deserved to dieexpect the female. What person infront of a court room, and jury could say with out emotion "I walked up to him when we was crawling towards he four-wheeler and I said; "You not dead yet!?" and I shot them again"

Like I said nothing is a bad enouigh punishment for him.

Curtis


----------



## slough

You just never know exactly what happened out there since Vang's and the other hunters' testimonies were different. Put yourself in a guy like vang's shoes -out in the woods surrounded by 5 or 6 people, who I do not doubt were verbally abusing him and with the racial tension out there, who knows who shot first...etc. I'm sure if I were in a situation like that, and with the way I see some deer hunters act during deer season, I'd probably be pretty scared for my life. I'm not in any way saying it is alright to kill people, but I have my doubts that this was as coldhearted of a crime as some people make it out to be. Yes he shot people in the back and yes he probably deserves to be in prison but it sure would be nice to know all the details.


----------



## cooter77

Hang him high!!! This low life will get what he deserves in jail, I'm sure some one will take out Jailhouse justice on him. I think WI needs the death penalty to save us some tax money. Now I'm paying for someone who killed six people to get three hot and a cot. :sniper:


----------



## crna

i am the first to say he should go to jail for what he did!
but let me pose this question. If you were surrounded by
5-6 people who probably have guns (because they were deer hunting), shouting and swearing at you and being aggressive and were shot at first would anyone have done differently. i would say the majority would not. let me say that no one deserves to die over something like this but those hunters could have handled the situation much differently. it should be an example of what can happen out in the field. with hunter/hunter hunter/landowner confrontations rising each year i'm surprised this hasn't happened more. hopefully we can all learn from this.


----------



## Curtis

I would bet 10000000000000000000000000 dollars those guys didn't shoot first, and all you need to about the yelling is walk away and apologize.


----------



## bratlabs

cooter77 said:


> Hang him high!!! This low life will get what he deserves in jail, I'm sure some one will take out Jailhouse justice on him. I think WI needs the death penalty to save us some tax money. Now I'm paying for someone who killed six people to get three hot and a cot. :sniper:


I cant agree more. I also think some of the people who question what happened should read about it when it first happened. I think if it was me in his shoes I wouldnt have sat in someones treestand on private land and when confronted I would have left knowing that I got caught for something I shouldnt have did. I say let the families vent on him a while and whats left of him can go prision. :sniper:


----------



## zettler

slough,

The people who confonted him, and the others who tried to come to their rescue only tto get shot themselves, only had ONE weapon among them. Just one. And to the best of my knowledge, it was not used in their defense...

POSTSCRIPT

Sorry, I just read the following, "Two survivors of the shootings testified that only one shot was fired at Vang, and that was after he had already shot the victims."


----------



## Top Flight Waterfowling

Glad to have that guy outta the woods forever, that happened not far from me. :evil: Unbeleiveable..... :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Rick Davis

Curtis: Been there done that. I've been confronted by more than one clown that thinks he owns all the the deer. I've been told by a landowner that if you shoot on my side of the fence, I'll shoot back. I responded with a like, I know how to read, the dude was pretty adimate about not wanting me around his land and carried on about how he'd like to kick peoples ***'s . I laughed at him and told I'd meet him down the road. The next morning he came again (sober) and was a different person. I not saying what Vang did was right, but being a native american, I bet I know
the feeling. Is a stinkin deer worth getting shot over?


----------



## Gohon

I don't think anyone here is attempting to defend the actions of Vang but at the same time there is always two sides to a story and I've seen a lot of comments that tells me some haven't even bothered to read what was reported in court. For example, the second witness Lauren Hesebeck who was one of the survivors testified ........



> "the owner of the land Robert Crotteau had kicked trespassers off his land before and was angry Vang was there.
> 
> He says Crotteau angrily confronted him in the woods and used racial insults and profanities at Vang, who is Hmong. Hesebeck says when Vang tried to walk away Crotteau's son blocked him because his father wasn't done talking.
> 
> At one point Crotteau reportedly told Vang he would report him to the DNR.
> 
> "When Bob said we were going to report him to the DNR someone get his backtag number, he tried to turn his back away from us so we couldn't read it and he kind of side stepped a little bit and walked away," Hesebeck told jurors."


So he was in fact cursed and called racial names................

The first witness, also a survivor named Willers testified ...........



> "the confrontation turned violent after Vang apologized for trespassing on their private land and the group threatened to report him to authorities.
> 
> Willers testified he found Vang in a tree stand, asked him to leave and then gave him directions to public property. Vang, who was wearing a camouflaged ski mask, started to leave, Willers said.
> 
> As Vang walked away, Willers said he used a radio to call one of the property's owners, Robert Crotteau, at a nearby cabin.
> 
> Crotteau drove up with other hunters on two all-terrain vehicles and the angrily accused Vang of trespassing".


In another report Willers admitted he did in fact fire one shot at Vang from behind a tree but only after he was wounded himself. The truth is we will never really know what happened in that field on that day and it seems to me the entire tragedy could have been prevented by the use of good common sense. No, I personally don't need to read about what happened when it first happened. Just like the Katrina story the facts don't surface until a investigation is done and above is the facts from the two people that were there and shot themselves. Six people died needlessly because someone couldn't keep their racist mouth shut and tripped the trigger of someone ready to explode for what ever reason.


----------



## bratlabs

Gohon, good post. I guess Ill have to read the court transcripts myself. Still doesnt change my mind about what punishment should be handed down. If it was available. :dead:


----------



## slough

Gohon: Very good, informative post. That's basically what I was trying to get across-that in no way am I saying what he did wasn't horrble and shouldn't be punished, but I do think that there is more to the story than a lot of closed-minded people like to believe.

Curtis: If I recall correctly from your other posts, you're like 15 or 16 years old. How can you be soooooo sure that those people didn't shoot first? They likely didn't but, were you there? As you get older, you'll learn that you need to look at things more deeply and not just believe everything you hear on TV and from people on the internet.


----------



## Curtis

So what does being 15, or 16 half to do with me thinking, or considering something? First off, You have 6 guys with one gun. 2nd off, don't think they were that angry-kicking someone off their land to shoot them. Also I really think if all did go wrong and they did shoot at him first, I think these guys would have had the balls to say so.

But when you have all these guys running like hell to get away from Chai Vang, and they all get shot in the back, and they are fleeing for their lives, I really dont think they shot first. Also, they were; 'In his face" and I dont think someone would miss from that close :sniper: 

So dont question what ages has to do with thinking-knowing-and opinionating something. I would appreciate it next time.

One other thing slough-Maybe I have looked at this more deeply than you have, last yeaar I went in depth to do a report on the whole situation for school, and I have been following this very closely. It does hit home when other hunters are killed.

God bless the familys, and those who were lost.

Curtis


----------



## zettler

Gohon said, "Six people died needlessly because someone couldn't keep their racist mouth shut and tripped the trigger of someone ready to explode for what ever reason."

While I like the rest of your post, I find little solace in your statement above. I am a white male and have been a minority in many places and in many situations throughout my life (Oakland, CA, San Antonio, TX, High School, ad nauseum) where I have been beaten, accosted, threatened and verbally attacked, and I am 52 years of age. And you know what, never, and I mean never, have I ever attacked anyone, shot someone or hunted them down because they "deserved it" (Vang's words).

My mother, who was British citizen till the day she died, even suffered from verbal attacks, slights and discrimination here in America from the get-go when she arrived in this country in 1946. And you know what; she never attacked anyone, shot someone or hunted them down because they "deserved it".

When I was young and had other children and even some parents verbally assault me and the children even threaten me, I was told two simple things on how to cope by my mother - "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" and to "turn the other cheek."

I realize it is not always possible to live that way and haven't always followed that in the past, but by golly, to use words as an excuse to murder people is beyond my comprehension.

And for anyone else to condone murder or feel there was even the slightest absolution for one's actions because someone was the recipient of ANY verbal barrage, well, that is too.

And, yes, I did originally follow this event (see my posts here and elsewhere) so I am somewhat familiar with the evolution of the recollection/recreation of the events and the defense strategy but that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. While I can have empathy for Vang if he was verbally assaulted, I have no compassion for him or what his decisions have wrought on his own family and those of the deceased and wounded.

He has been in this country over 20 years, and while still technically an immigrant, he is an American from the same melting pot as most of us and is therefore responsible to abide by the same freedoms, rights and responsibilities he volunteered to defend as a member of the National Guard and as an American citizen.

Gohon, I have to also respectfully disagree with your accusation above that these people who ended up murdered or wounded were "racist." I cannot judge these individuals based upon reporters who write to make money, or, even from court transcripts based upon sometimes conflicting testimony. I have never met them, broke bread with them, or even talked directly with anyone who has. I would hazard a guess that they are human and prone to human biases but that is as far as I can go.

What someone says in the heat of a confrontation is not always the best representation of who they are as a person but actions certainly are a much better indicator&#8230;


----------



## Gohon

Zettler, I lived in the Bay Area for almost 20 years so I know very well what it is like out there. My wife is Japanese which makes my children half Japanese. I know full well what racism is on both sides of the fence as I have faced it many times and experienced the pain it inflicts. As for my accusations as you put it, that is not a accusation or speculation on my part and I never said these people were raciest, I said some one and it appears that someone was the father and son. Again here is the quote from a witness in court under oath..... "Crotteau angrily confronted him in the woods and used racial insults and profanities at Vang, who is Hmong. Hesebeck says when Vang tried to walk away Crotteau's son blocked him because his father wasn't done talking." Racial insults are his words, not mine and I think the part that the son blocked him when he tried to walk away is very important, especially since it was the second time he attempted to leave the area. These are quotes from the trial so I don't know where the comment you made "I cannot judge these individuals based upon reporters who write to make money, or, even from court transcripts based upon sometimes conflicting testimony" is even coming from as that makes no sense at all. You're reading what you want to see and not what is written or really happened. I nor anyone else that I have seen post here are making excuses for what Vang did and I don't think anyone on here has expressed that he did not get what he deserved. The point is the racial slurs as testified by a witness, were not only uncalled for, as they never are but very dumb when you're confronting someone with a gun. This guy was apparently ready to go off anytime and most likely because of past experience (my guess) and in this case in his own mind at least, I would assume he was pushed to that point. I'll say it again, those six people did not have to die if common sense had been applied. But they did die and at the very least I can only hope that all of use learn from this tragedy.


----------



## bratlabs

I seen on the news that the WIDNR was having hunter ed. classes for the Hmong. The reporter interviewed a couple of the students and not 1 of them could speak english. A DNR liason was interpereting for them. How in the hell are they going to read the regs. or anything in english????Is the DNR going to send a interpreter out to every vendor so these people can buy a license and know the rules and regulations?? I dont have a problem with anybody, but when they want to hunt and carry a gun, maybe they should first learn the language. Isnt communication our biggest asset? I know its kind of off subject but I had to vent alittle and also would like to hear if Im alone in this thinking.


----------



## Curtis

bratlabs said:


> I dont have a problem with anybody, but when they want to hunt and carry a gun, maybe they should first learn the language. Isnt communication our biggest asset?


Agree'd 110%!
:beer:

Learn how tro read and speka in english and then go through a firearm safety cource THEN get a gun a hunt.


----------



## Chris Schulz

LET THE FAMILY MEMBERS FROM THE PEOPLE THAT WERE KILLED HAVE THEIR OWN WAY WITH HIM. ITS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID TO THE PEOPLE THAT DIED.


----------



## Bull_Can

Let's look at this from another analogy (because I am heated up right now and bored at work): Many men feel as passionate about their deer stands/deer as they do about their own beds/wives. Laugh it up, but it is true. If some guy was in your bed with your wife, would you be mad enough to start spitting out profanities, racial slurs and possibly comments about his mother? And if that guy got up and shot you, how much bearing should be put on what you said vs. the situation at hand?

I for one am getting annoyed at all the emphasis the media and defense have put on the "racial" statements. Don't get me wrong, racial slurs are a negative (and pretty low blow) attack on a person and should not be used, BUT if I was to make a racial comment to someone on the street, or in a bar and that caused a fight...you bet it should be a big part of the court case, BUT if I used racial terms on PRIVATE PROPERTY, it should have no bearing. We can regulate what takes place in public, but don't let us start down the road where we can't even speak our minds on our own property w/o the laws of this land crashing down on us.

Believe me that I am NOT a racist, but I am very protective of our rights, as citizens, on private ownership of land, and all that goes with those rights. The media wants us to think about this as a racial issue, but this is a case about tempers flying and a "man on the edge" being pushed too far. What pushed him over the edge might be interesting, but not convictable.


----------



## PSDC

Bull_Can,

I agree with you 100% that racial slurs should have no bearing when
on private land. Obvious the jury felt the same way. Would 
things have changed if the racial remarks did not occur, no one
knows!?

The problem I have with the whole situation, the state of Wisconsin
will have to flip the baby sitting bill until his death.

I truely believe that if someone is not native born to this country
and commit such an act, SHIP THEM BACK, NEVER LET THEM 
BACK INTO THIS USA, PERIOD.

That way they will not be a burden on the states correctional 
agencies.

One way ticket will cost alot less!!!!!!!


----------



## Bull_Can

PSDC said:


> I truely believe that if someone is not native born to this country
> and commit such an act, SHIP THEM BACK, NEVER LET THEM
> BACK INTO THIS USA, PERIOD.


We can't go that far. Everyone has relatives that were immigrants to this land at one point or another (even indians came up from the south, or accross the Bering Sea). The main point is once you are a citizen, you are entitled and protected as an American citizen.

NOW, with that being said, we need to make darn sure we evaluate WHO we let in, and re-evaluate our probation period.


----------



## bratlabs

The death penalty would also save some money. Its got to be pretty cheap to give these people a shot, especially in a case like this were everyone knows he is guilty.


----------



## zettler

I originally wrote the following last night, and while I believe I have fairly presented my thoughts, I am not all too sure they will be clear to everyone or concisely and accurately portray exactly what I am trying to say. However, I thought it would be an appropriate time to lay out my thoughts, observations and opinions in order to continue an excellent dialogue.

Gohon, I respect your opinions and appreciate your experiences but I strongly feel a need to express myself too - I hope you understand.

Your original quote is, "Six people died needlessly because someone couldn't keep their racist mouth shut..."

That to me says you are calling the people (or at least one of them) who confronted Vang, and then got shot, a "racist" and I believe others will feel the same way. Not really an accusation (my poor choice of words), just plain observation about what you wrote.

Then you say in response to me, "These are quotes from the trial so I don't know where the comment you made "I cannot judge these individuals based upon reporters who write to make money, or, even from court transcripts based upon sometimes conflicting testimony" is even coming from".

Simple. I do not have access (yet) to court transcripts and therefore I am stating that I cannot, and I feel that no reasonable person can either, say with any reliability or accuracy (unless a/v recordings or written transcripts were utilized to corroborate what the news articles say) that this is actually what the person in question testified in court. Therefore, I have to assume is that they are paraphrasing what was said. When a person (in the media, law enforcement or even off the street) writes or verbally recounts what transpired, it is common for the results to include personal bias and therefore, will not be a true reflection of what was actually stated, testified and of course, actually occurred.

Many times in a disagreement between two people, there are at least three versions of what happened. The respective individual's versions and, hopefully, the truth.

Unfortunately, no one, not the victims, not the perpetrator, and certainly not any of us will ever know what truly went on during this incident. And I will agree that if everyone used not only common sense but common courtesy, then most likely we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But people are human and make mistakes - sometimes conscious deadly mistakes - and that is why I am on the bandwagon and consciously chose to reply to your post.

You see, after reading and now re-reading (a number of times) your post, I still believe there is a theme to your posts. That theme is racism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism). Unfortunately, yes, racism does exist all over the world and here in the United States; and some people seem to be more sensitive either due to personal experiences or the like.

But where I draw the line is when people either hide behind the term, or, throw it in others faces, when in fact that just by virtue of saying something derogatory is supposedly defining another individual as racist - is something I do not ascribe to. Do I view myself as a racist? No, I do not. Do I think I have personal biases and/or prejudices? Unfortunately, I believe I do have biases and some prejudices. I certainly have a strong bias towards individuals who hide behind a defense of claims against another when they say they acted upon how they felt another individual supposedly believes or behaves - such as what Vang has performed.

In your own words, you said (again), "Six people died needlessly because someone couldn't keep their racist mouth shut and tripped the trigger of someone ready to explode for what ever reason."

That to me says you refer to the victims (at least one of them) as being racist ("racist mouth") and is one of two primary points I am addressing in my lengthy replies. The other point is the fact that you're indirectly asserting the victims are in part responsible for their death. At least, that is how I read it. And while it appears both of us are familiar with living our lives and experiencing the pain from prejudice and are sensitive to prejudice - the underlying root of racism - I do not believe that just because we as individuals have been subject to prejudice throughout our lives will absolve us when we choose to act illegally (e.g., Katrina looters and Vang in particular).

Having grown up in central Illinois in the 1950's and 1960's and traveling through the south back then too, I was witness to open segregation, prejudice and discrimination. My father was from extreme southern Illinois so that added an additional perspective. However, I have taken great pride that I did not fall "victim" to being a racist, a victim, or a criminal BUT strived to maintain a level head about ALL individuals.

So, maybe this post is about me and how I feel and not so much about what you have written. As I have written here several times, I believe in preaching the three "R's" for individuals as I see them: Do what is RIGHT; Be RESPECTFUL; and above all, be RESPONSIBLE. Irregardless of what others do or say, this simple mantra or code is what I teach my children to live by.

Life is not a Billy Jack, Punisher or Rambo movie - much as we might want it to be at times. There are measured consequences for an individual's actions - within society and the legal system. For the most part, the victims did what they should do. They confronted and requested he vacate their private property and informed him that they were reporting him to the authorities. If you read the original police report from Vang's own words, you will note he changed his testimony from when he was initially arrested by the Conservation Agent, to the statement, to the courtroom, and several times in between. Here is the link in this very forum that contains the sheriff's report: http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/n ... dits01.pdf

What amazes me about the his written statement is that it contains a cold-blooded description that for the most part closely corresponds with the victims statements - with the exception of who fired the first shot and how Vang removed the scope to murder the Wisconsin men and woman. I believe that part is key for the prosecution and for the jury as to who was more believable. However, we will never know the actual events but we will always know the outcome&#8230;

To taint a victim with a label of being a racist like what Vang has done, when we do not know that individual, is simply wrong in my opinion. This is similar to how people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and David Duke cast the blame on the government or stereotype whole segments of our population as perpetrators or victims (look at the Katrina aftermath for a recent example). Life is not simple or easy, but that does not mean people should be allowed to cast blame at others for their becoming victims just because someone else chose to act illegally based upon some hurtful words or the like&#8230;

My thoughts. My observations. My opinions.

Once again, my heart goes out to the surviving families and friends of the victims and the convicted. May the taint of racism be washed from their memory and a better life for all evolve from the aftermath.


----------



## Gohon

You know, I found it odd last night when I saw a thread in another forum that had died many months ago but you had gone into and brought it back to the top of that forum with directions to this thread. I had to ask myself what is your real agenda. Then you completely pass over the statement by myself and everyone else that Vang got what he deserved and probable should be executed if that were possible. You also pass over the fact we all said it was a tragedy. As well you skim right over my comments that Vangs excuse was no excuse at all. Then you tell me you can not accept newspaper quotes from the trial by reporters because these people just want to make money, never mind the fact they are reporting quotes from two survivors who incidentally were friends of the six people that were murdered. If that wasn't enough you turn right around and suggest I read reports in a newspaper which the Sheriff stated at the arrest of Vang. Guess those news papers work for no money&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. Picking and choosing are we. Now someone on here even offers up the earth shattering news that some men are as passionate about their deer stands as they are their wives. In the first place this wasn't about a deer stand, it was about trespassing but I would have to say if these men are that simple minded then they probable deserve neither a deer stand nor a wife. Now we even have someone saying and another agreeing that if you are on private land you have the right to get in someone's face and call them anything you wish, just because you are on private land&#8230;&#8230; unbelievable. Now you can continue to attempt to change this event to fit into what you want to see that took place out in that field but I can assure those with a open mind will seen through the fog that one man and maybe two were loudmouth racist that tripped the trigger of a nut case and the deaths of themselves and the four others is to some degree on their shoulders. You may not want to accept that and that in no way is a excuse for what Van did but it is fact&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. The one loud mouth owner was a racist and I don't have to know him to come to that conclusion. I'll simply accept the word of two of his friends that testified in court thank you.

Anyway, as long as you keep attempting to direct this discussion in directions than have nothing to do with what has been said by myself but what you want to have been said I see no need to continue to spin in circles.


----------



## Azian

I've been steering free from this post for a while now being that My screen name says I'm asian. Every time I come on this site I think about the post though. I definately have no remorse for this man since what he did was so horrible and he is clearly cold blooded, but lots of the comments made during the post seem kind of offensive to me. I'm half Vietnamese and I feel that race has nothing to do with how a person acts no matter what he is doing in this country. To me it seems that a few of the people that have responded here and in similar posts do have a bit of prejudice, which is expected of any human being. I just don't understand how some of this prejudice can come out on a forum for everyone to read. I think its rather unthoughtful. Most of the people who are U.S. citizens not born in this country know how to speak english and can understand all of the rules for what they are doing. My mother is from Vietnam and she is one of the most wonderful people I have ever had the experience of being around. Even all of her friends understand what is going on, although they are hard to understand when they talk. Its called having an accent and it isn't by any means showing that they are incompetant of rational thought. This man was inconsiderate towards the fact that he was on private property, but it doesn't mean he didn't know he was doing wrong. Most of the Asian community I've met has been rather intellegent. It shows in the fact that they can speak 2 or more languages. I bet more people brought up in the U.S. can't say that. I know I can't. I took years of French and still barely understand it and I don't know a word of Vietnamese. I may be way off subject to the post with this reply, but I'm not off subject with some of the comments. People need to understand that they are judged by what they say and how they are carrying themselves. With that said I have a new view on some of the reply's to this post. Please don't make yourself sound ignorant. I truly believe that none of you are racist, but wonder about the thought you put into what you allow others to read and here. Remember to think before you speak!!!!


----------



## Curtis

Azian,

I agree fully with the whole respect issue.

:beer:


----------



## R y a n

Azian I sat and thought to myself for quite a bit of time on whether I should reply to your post or not. I appreciate that you are trying to search for meaning in all of this. Many many people have tried to find a meaning in what happened to that group that day....

I'll offer this thoughtful response to your post. Please bear in mind that I have deep sympathies to the hunting party, but have also felt some of the posts to this thread have gone over the line.

You are correct that race has nothing to do with how a person acts. How a person responds to a given stimuli has more to do with their ethnicity and the morals and principles that are instilled within them as they grow to adulthood. Vang was Hmong. Therefore we draw some conclusions based upon his Hmong upbringing. The Hmong traditionally (back in Laos & Thailand), have had a history of open hunting without regards for where/when/how they do it. The Hmong ALSO have a reputation for breaking fish and game laws in the US. Therefore it is also of interesting note that Vang also had multiple prior fish/game violations. These facts are undisputed. Take for example a recent exerpt from a Hmong webpage:

-------
"...I am an avid user of California's Ventana Wilderness in the Los Padres National Forest. I'm emailing you with the hope that you can somehow influence the Hmong hunters in California where resentment is growing. 
The Hmong have a poor reputation among campers, backpackers and hunters in the Ventana Wilderness as well as the neighboring forest areas. Many people who love the area are angry and resentful of Hmong hunters who leave ALL their trash and show very little regard for our hunting laws. It is frustrating to arrive at a usually pristine site and find an ugly mess. It is frustrating for a hunter who follows regulations to see a Hmong hunter blatantly disregard them.

I witnessed a friendly attempt to educate three Hmong we came across about the ethic of not littering. They didn't seem interested and all of a sudden pretended not to understand English. Similar stories abound. I myself do not hunt, but know the Hmong out here have a reputation for shooting any animal that moves regardless of season or location. A friend witnessed two Hmong shooting just a few feet from a road. When he confronted them in a respectful manner, they acted confused (perhaps they didn't speak English) and then ignored him. It is easy to get away with these transgressions out here because the Forest Service is severely under funded as well as the Department of Fish and Game so there is no emphasis on enforcement. ...."

http://www.jefflindsay.com/Hmong_tragedy.html
------------

It would be hard for Vang to claim ignorance of the law. He was an adult, had served in our armed forces, and read/spoke English. There is no plausible reason for him to have not understood he was hunting on private property. He has lived in the United States, and hunted in the United States for enough years to get the "gist" of the law.

You yourself are being a bit racist in your post. You have lumped together all people from SouthEast Asia as being "rather intelligent" simply because they are Asian. As a matter of general intelligence, Asians are no more intelligent than any other race. To insinuate otherwise is racist. Furthermore, you imply that someone is more intelligent than others simply because they speak multiple languages. That has nothing to do with intelligence, rather it usually implies they have been exosed to multiple tongues during their developmental years. Most citizens of the United States who speak multiple languages fluently/easily are first/second generation immigrants. This has nothing to do with intelligence.

I am not ignorant, nor racist. I have looked at the facts presented in this case, and have looked at the prior actions of this man to come to my conclusions. This also does not make me prejudiced. To be prejudiced, I would have had to "pre-judge" the issue. This issue has nothing to do with racism. Playing the race card was a legal strategy employed by a desperate defense team at winning a sympathy vote. Have you looked into the history of the Hmong culture? Do you realize the hunting/fishing issues they have caused North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin since immigrating here en masse? Have you done your research before replying to this post?

At what point does someone have the right to say enough is enough? Sure maybe the landowner overreacted. But if you were that landowner and this had been happening to you over and over again, at what point would you take a stand?

Thanks for listening to my rant on this.

Kind Regards,

Ben Elli


----------



## Azian

Zettler,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply and good conversation on my post.


----------



## zettler

Azian, your welcome and I enjoyed the repartee via PM's.

Ben, I truly liked your thought-out comments until the seventh paragraph where I believe you might have let emotion take precedence over reason. Once again, let me say you took the time to establish a basis for your stated beliefs and you did an excellent job.

However, I diverge from what you laid out when you said someone is a "bit racist." From a couple of posts here in this thread, I have seen how emotions run high and especially so when the word "racist" is mentioned - whether it is shouted out or mentioned in passing. It is just one of those words that sets people off and is difficult to defend. Kind of like asking someone if they still beat their wife. An observer would have to believe that person accused has in fact been a wife-beater when there is no proof...

Sorry, I can be far out there to others even when I clearly understand my intent.

If you had simply left out the first three sentences of that paragraph, I do not think anyone would have a problem but to extrapolate that Azian is a bit racist detracts from the arguments you have clearly and carefully laid out for all to read. In addition, I would bet that Azian would most likely agree with the rest of your post - as I know I do!

Your one statement surely sums it up for me and I would also bet many others here. And that is, "Playing the race card was a legal strategy employed by a desperate defense team at winning a sympathy vote."

After PMing Azian back-and-forth as we did these past few days, I would have to say that even though his heritage might include being subject to discriminatory words, he has strived to remain level-headed and not let his emotions and feelings for himself and his loved ones to interfere with rational thought - at least in our discussion of this particular issue and issues related to this thread. I have no vested interest in the accused, the victims, their families, or the like, BUT I DID AND REMAIN concerned that people need to take more responsibility for their actions, deeds, words and the like and not blame others for how they decide to act - irregardless of their race, creed, color, sexual preference, or even their feelings for another person.

Once again Ben, I like the way you presented your thoughts and beliefs but respectfully disagree with your question of whether Azian was being a racist. Maybe he didn't choose his words the best but I bet you two (and me) could not only agree on most everything regarding a number of issues but share a blind together without shooting one another!

In any case, I want to thank you and Azian for revisiting this topic. I had wanted to but did not want to sound like I was possibly still beating my wife&#8230;

Just my quick and dirty response after an active day of honey-do's that I have had to do for myself since I am single!


----------



## Selma Goods

I certainly am not supportive of this killer in any way but this is what I don't understand. If these "hunters" were all out "hunting" why did only one guy have a gun? Were the others just watching the hunt? Maybe I missed something somewhere. Any ideas or factual info on that??


----------



## buckseye

Duh.... you are on a computer use it to research the case.


----------



## bratlabs

play nice. Selma Goods, heres a link that will tell you a little more. If you want to research what happened, its all over the internet.

http://crime.about.com/od/news/a/vang041122.htm


----------



## spoonkilr

It is a tragedy that people had to die that day! The thing that caught my attention was GOOD training. A US military trained vet.He engaged and and defeated a superior numbered force. No one should every die that needlessly but six dead and 2 wounded.......against numbers!!!!! Soldier???Killer???? Misunderstood????who knows????--spoonkilr


----------



## MossyMO

spoonkilr
All were unarmed except the first one he shot.


----------



## spoonkilr

i didnt relize that they were deer hunting using the jedi mind trick. I read the article again. I am not justifying the action ...i was just amazed at the cold hearted precision in which he did it! another question... why was the posse unarmed in the deer woods???---just curious--spoonkilr


----------



## MossyMO

How I understood it, a large majority of them were in the cabin and 2 of them were out on 4 wheeler when they spotted a trespasser sitting in their deer stand, on their property. They radioed back to the cabin letting them know of the trespasser and then they approached Vang and told him to get down, letting him know he was trespassing. From this came a verbal conflict while others were arriving.

Been about a year now, but from all I've seen on TV and read in the newspaper, that is how I understand it. If anyone can add or correct to my thinking, please do.


----------



## Gohon

According to one newspaper account from the court transcript.......

"Willers testified he found Vang in a tree stand, asked him to leave and then gave him directions to public property. Vang, who was wearing a camouflaged ski mask, started to leave, Willers said.
As Vang walked away, Willers said he used a radio to call one of the property's owners, Robert Crotteau, at a nearby cabin.
Crotteau drove up with other hunters on two all-terrain vehicles and the angrily accused Vang of trespassing".

Willers testified later that he was the one lone hunter that got off a shot at Vang after he himself had been hit and was diving behind a tree, so apparently he had the only rifle with him when he first approached Vang.


----------



## ProtectThe2ndAmendment

Well I guess you could call me racist..(damn liberals) What the hell is a Hmong doing out in the woods with a gun anyways. I have a father in law and he had the same problem with one of them damn hmong in his deer stand they shouldn't be allowed to hunt he wasn't deer hunting he was probably going stray cat hunting cuase that's what them hmongs eat more of. If I saw one of that there hmong in my hunting stand I would have gone Vietnam on his yellow rice eating ***. He puts in the bad name of The 2nd Amendment. Out of how many thousands of hunters in the woods in Wisconsin and there hasn't been an intentional firing at somebody for several years and now we have one hmong that goes into the woods and ends up killing 6-7 people. He called it defense in one of his stories he made up. Defense my *** he chased down a few people on an ATV and shot them in the back also when they were going away from them. Leave the huntin' to the white people.

:sniper:<-- 1 hmong shooting results in 6-7 deaths of americans in the woods --> :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## SupportTheHuntingVictims

Very sad story I would say more...My name and Signature says it all.

:shake: :eyeroll: :shake:


----------



## sierra03

I wouldnt say leave the hunting to the white people, thats too much. Although I would say leave the hunting to the sane.


----------



## Gohon

This has to be the dumbest post I've seen any where on this board. :idiot:


----------



## mr.trooper

crna said:


> i am the first to say he should go to jail for what he did!
> but let me pose this question. If you were surrounded by
> 5-6 people who probably have guns (because they were deer hunting), shouting and swearing at you and being aggressive and were shot at first would anyone have done differently. i would say the majority would not. let me say that no one deserves to die over something like this but those hunters could have handled the situation much differently. it should be an example of what can happen out in the field. with hunter/hunter hunter/landowner confrontations rising each year i'm surprised this hasn't happened more. hopefully we can all learn from this.


IIRC, they were shouting and swearing at him because he was tresspassing, and using their treestand. :wink: Likely along the lines of "Get the **** out of my stand you ******!". Iv been called worse for doing less.

Also, even IF things happened as you propose, that only justifies shooting the guy with the gun, who would have shot at you. not chasing down multiple unarmed bystandards who are running for their lives, and shooting them in the back. :wink:


----------



## zettler

COURTS: Vang sentencing is today

Prosecutor will ask hunter to be sentenced to six consecutive life prison terms and more

By Kevin Harter

St. Paul Pioneer Press

After nearly a year in the Sawyer County jail, Chai Soua Vang will soon move to what could be a permanent home behind razor wire and steel bars.

The 37-year-old St. Paul truck driver will be sentenced today in Hayward, Wis., for murdering six deer hunters and wounding two others last November in the woods of northwestern Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager will recommend that Sawyer County Judge Norman Yackel dole out the state's maximum punishment: life without the possibility of parole.

A jury from Dane County found Chai Soua Vang guilty Sept. 16 of all charges - six counts of first-degree intentional homicide and three counts of attempted homicide - in the Nov. 21 shootings, which followed an angry confrontation over trespassing in a tree stand on the second day of the 2004 deer-hunting season.

The judge can determine if the sentences will be concurrent or consecutive. Lautenschlager will ask that Chai Soua Vang be sentenced to six consecutive life prison terms for the murder convictions and 40 years in prison plus 20 years' extended supervision for each of the attempted murder counts - with no possibility of parole.

"Mr. Vang acted clearly out of anger over what he perceived as disrespectful treatment," Lautenschlager argued in a 16-page sentencing recommendation filed in Sawyer County Circuit Court last week. "He deliberately and consciously chose to kill those people unfortunate enough to cross his path when his anger exploded ....

"Put simply, Vang intentionally and systematically turned the Willers-Crotteau hunting property into a killing field."

After a six-day trial, Chai Soua Vang was convicted of fatally shooting Robert Crotteau, 42, and his son, Joey Crotteau, 20; Dennis Drew, 55; Allan Laski, 43; Jessica Willers, 27; and Mark Roidt, 28. Terry Willers and Lauren Hesebeck were injured but survived. All the hunters were from the Rice Lake area.

The defendant, a Hmong immigrant, claimed that some of the white hunters used racial slurs against him and one shot at him before he returned fire. The surviving hunters denied the accusations, saying Chai Soua Vang fired first.

Many of the victims' relatives are expected to speak today, a right they are entitled to under the Wisconsin Victims Rights Bill.

Chai Soua Vang also has the right to speak after their statements, before the judge has the last word.

"He has a right to allocution," said Jonathan Smith, a Milwaukee-based defense attorney who represented Chai Soua Vang. Smith said he doesn't know whether his client will choose to address the court.

Smith would not comment on the sentencing, other than to say that under state guidelines, Chai Soua Vang could expect maximum terms and the possibility of no option for parole.

Soon after sentencing, he will be transferred to the Dodge Correctional Institution in Waupun for "assessment and evaluation," said John Dipko, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

The inmate's safety, along with other inmates' safety, also is reviewed, he said.

After six to eight weeks at Dodge, Chai Soua Vang will be transferred, likely to one of the state's three maximum-security prisons in Green Bay, Portage or Waupun.

Of the 21,400 people in Wisconsin prisons, 76 identify themselves as Hmong, Dipko said, but it is "self-reported" or voluntary.


----------



## Bob Kellam

6 life terms without the possibility of parole.

Bob


----------



## flytier231

What Bob is saying in his brief post is that is what Chai Vang got as a sentence-6 consecutive life sentences, which allows for no possibility of parole. I hope this will end the string of terrible events in the woods of WI. I mean I hunt here, and like to be thought of as a hunter in the best sense of the word, and not as a target!


----------



## joebobhunter4

870 XPRS said:


> I for one am saddened that the death peanalty is not in play here..


why dould you want him to get the death penalty when he can get the $h!t [email protected] outa him in prison? :beer:


----------



## tang

A very complicated case, I can't remember if I read or saw on Court TV at time of his arrest Vang had an outstanding warrant for trespassing.


----------



## ohio

one time i was hunting on new land and crossed a property line without knowing it because they didnt have a fence....well the land owner was a younger guy and he asked me what i was dpoing and i told him i think im hunting on my dad's friends land and he informed me that i wasnt.....i apologized and told him i was sorry and then he gave me permission to hunt whenever i wished but just to call him first....now i hunt there all the tme and visit him frequently.....se what can happen if you dont do something stupid likerunning or lying your way out of things.....im glad i did the right thing.......now i kill deerthere almost yearly


----------

