Vang Convicted!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Too bad Wisconsin hasn't got the death penalty."


jeffrey dahmer didnt get the death penalty either and we all remember what happened to him. this guy may be facing the same.
 
Dahmer was in transition using the lovely facilities in the Mendota Mental Health facility when he was ventilated. Vang was proven mentally fit to stand trial so he won't be able to visit Madison, too bad.

I'm sure there are fellow hunters using the rehabilitation facilities in my lovely state to let him know how the community feels :rolleyes:
 
For once the trier of fact has found correctly against the accused. Still, it does nothing for the families whose lives he inflicted so much pain upon.
 
Victims of crimes can never be made "whole," but I"m sure if you asked the families they'd prefer to have him convicted than found not guilty.

That's "something."

And, while the killer is likely insolvent, in many cases civil suits follow.

$ can't bring back the dead or heal pain, but it's also something.
 
Folks who choose to live in states without the death penalty are getting the kind of justice that they desire. If it's o.k. with them, then that's fine with me. I'll just stay out of those states.
 
His claim to self-defense was a little weak, considering that five of his six victims were unarmed, four of them were shot in the back, and the last victim was shot in the back at over 100 yards while running away from Mr. Vang.
 
It seems that sources differ here. My first source, a National Public Radio broadcast mentioned three shot in the back. Marko mentioned four. Anyone have a more complete source reference?
 
His claim to self-defense was a little weak, considering that five of his six victims were unarmed, four of them were shot in the back, and the last victim was shot in the back at over 100 yards while running away from Mr. Vang.
Click to expand...

Excllent analysis....!!!!

heres the deal with intentional murder charges...there are five things you can do.

1. Plead guilty and either sit on Old Sparky or get at least 20 years.
2. Try to get a better deal and plead guilty, see numbers three, and five
3. Go to trial....defense...someone else did it...if ya got somehting, see #2
4. Go to trial...defense, ya did it but were insane....use this only when you got nothing else to lose becasue unless you are a gibbering lunatic you get the results of number 1
5. Go to trial and say you were justified... (self defense)...got something you might get number 2

Here I gather that only number 1 and 5 was available....there wasnt gonna be no number 2, no matter what...accordingly he had to give it his ONLY shot (bad pun)

WildsomuchformrvanghavefunintheclinkAlaska
 
Heard this on the radio - gave me one of the few smiles of the day. Good ridance and may Mr. Vang never have the opportunity to "defend" himself again. He's proven he does not deserve that right and saying that tells a lot about how little I care about his welfare being I hold that right so sacred... :(
 
Well, Zeke, mostly it is because I have a deep distrust of anything I hear on NPR, especially as relates to legal matters. I had to look it up on the internet when I got home.
 
I was not there that day. I don't know anyone involved. I don't know what really happened. I do trust the court's decision.

But just let me play Devil's advocate ...

You're out legally hunting somewhere. A bunch of toothless local hillbillies (don't want to make them a different race to stay more PC) start screaming insults at you. One takes a shot at you with his rifle. They are moving in to kill you. All of them appear to have guns.

Being an expert shot and fired up by adrenaline you return fire. You take down the armed one who fired the shot. The others head for cover, but of course you're not going to let them get there. BIG tactical mistake. You drop most of them, the rest scatter.

You now turn and run because you're empty and you didn't come prepared for a gunfight. You know it's you against the locals (kind of like Deliverance -- in fact VERY like deliverance) so you try to get to a large town.

When you're caught, and the police hit the scene, all the rifles but one have been removed. Did those other's have rifles? Were you just paniccing? What if they had been threatening your life and were running to get rifles? They could have hunted you down in the forest.

I don't think anyone here really knows what happened. There are several scenarios that could have made this justified SD. But the case was decided months later by a jury listening to the details, and since the shooter was alone ...

Something to think about when you're facing a shoot/no shoot situation.
 
A terrified person doesn't hunt down a presumably armed assailant and especially multiple assailants, period! He knew they were unarmed thats why he went after them. Vang came from the killing fields and I think that his old way of life came into play. Nobody with tactical experience would face down that many in the woods armed as it would most likely be suicide. He was enraged, also was it ever determined he actually was shot at first, the victims claim he shot first. Who would you believe? If they wanted him dead they would have picked him off in the tree stand from a safe distance before he ever knew they were there. Vang is also the prime suspect in a previous hunting/tresspassing murder and the evidence sure supports that!! Sounds like he is just a cold blooded murderer. Vang also had a F&G violation he never paid the fine for so it is a fact he has no respect for the law!
 
Garand Illusion the major flaw in your argument is that it would only apply on your own property or lease or less applicably on public land. It wouldn't apply in the middle of somebody else's land. Poachers are armed brigands stealing from the landowners.
 
I think there are more lessons similar to what garand was saying.
The guys who died in the woods that day would of been better served if they had tried to de- esculate the situation some.
It maybe would have been better to have simply called LEO.
Certainly it is never good to agitate a stranger with a gun.
Not that they deserved to be shot.
 
Vang came from the killing fields and I think that his old way of life came into play

That was my first reaction when this incident occurred.

His tactical situational awareness seemed to suggest he wasn't new to this kind of "one versus many" scenario. Delayed stress syndrome maybe. Regardless, he had both the opportunity to kill and the will to kill happening at the same time. That was a powerful combination.

If the victims had had a clue as to how close this guy was to the edge they might have taken a different stance. I'm not saying the victims were some how at fault but I do think there was a strong possibility they underestimated what this guy was capable of.
 
I wasn't actually defending Vang, just applying so many things we talk about here.

People generally say things like "He fires a shot at me, I'm definitely shooting him down."

Since none of us were there ... suppose these guys were swearing at him and threatening the asian guy who dared violate their area. Maybe one did fire the first shot over his head (he says they fired first, the other "victims" say he fired first ... all the jury can do is listen to testimony since the bullets weren't time stamped) in that case most would say, "Oh yeah -- he's using lethal force. Shoot him down."

But if this was what happened, and Vang stopped shooting after taking down the guy with the gun, it's quite possible the results would be the SAME. Still going to prison for life, because the other's worked on their story and made sure they testified correctly as to who fired first.

So to me the point is ... always use your head as your primary weapon before you use anything else. Even if you're in the right (don't know if he was or not) you'd damned well better hesitate before returning fire on a group that large. Chances are you're right -- if the rifle shooter amongst the victims did fire first and WANTED to kill him it would have happened.

How much better everyone's life would have been if Vang and the other's BOTH would have swalled their pride and deescalated this situation.

I do believe that Vang snapped and got the sentence he deserved (since lethal injection isn't an option).

But ... it's also within the range of possibility that this is a man who chose to defend his own life with a firearm against lethal force being presented against him, and as a result is about to face life without parole in prison. No one here can disprove that, and only the people there that day actually know for sure.

Sure ... it's better to be tried by 6 than carried by 4 (is that right?) but if those six send you up the river for life without parole ... you might not have made the right choice.

We all have to choose when to shoot/when not to shoot. Sometimes you have to face the danger and err on the side of not shooting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top