OT Hunting tragedy in Wisconsin

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
. com:

George Adams wrote:
From: Ken Fortenberry
I don't
know about you, but when I hear an unbelievable story I tend
not to believe it.

So what was it Ken? ...

I have no idea. The only information I have is the same as yours.
I just don't believe the story as presented, it doesn't make sense.


From the AP:
"HAYWARD, Wis. (AP) -- A man suspected in the killings of six hunters told
investigators he began firing after he was shot at first and some of the
victims called him racially derogatory names, according to documents filed
Tuesday."

Two sides to every story.

Scott

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Ken Fortenberry wrote in
. com:

George Adams wrote:
From: Ken Fortenberry
I don't
know about you, but when I hear an unbelievable story I tend
not to believe it.

So what was it Ken? ...

I have no idea. The only information I have is the same as yours.
I just don't believe the story as presented, it doesn't make
sense.


From the AP:
"HAYWARD, Wis. (AP) -- A man suspected in the killings of six
hunters told
investigators he began firing after he was shot at first and some of
the
victims called him racially derogatory names, according to documents
filed
Tuesday."

Anyone familiar with the history of race relations in northern
Wisconsin over the past couple of decades shouldn't have much trouble
finding that account credible.

Two sides to every story.

Well, there's the rub. For the moment at least, the other side is
somewhat under-represented.

Wolfgang

Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
George Adams wrote:
From: Ken Fortenberry
I don't
know about you, but when I hear an unbelievable story I tend
not to believe it.

So what was it Ken? ...

I have no idea. The only information I have is the same as yours.
I just don't believe the story as presented, it doesn't make sense.

From the AP:
"HAYWARD, Wis. (AP) -- A man suspected in the killings of six hunters told
investigators he began firing after he was shot at first and some of the
victims called him racially derogatory names, according to documents filed
Tuesday."

Two sides to every story.

From the same story:

"A hunter approached and told Vang he was on private property, and Vang
started to leave as other hunters approached, the statement said. Vang
said the hunters surrounded him and some called him racial slurs.

"Vang said he started walking away but looked back to see the first
hunter point his rifle at him and then fire a shot that hit the ground
30 to 40 feet behind him, the statement said.

"Vang told investigators that's when he started firing at the group,
according to the statement."

In the absence of any evidence one way or the other that
story is *far* more believable to me than the story told
by the white people. How many Hmong you figure to be on a
jury in Sawyer County, Wisconsin ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote

In the absence of any evidence one way or the other that
story is *far* more believable to me than the story told
by the white people. How many Hmong you figure to be on a
jury in Sawyer County, Wisconsin ?

about a dozen less than absolutely necessary for success.

wayno

Wayne Harrison wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
In the absence of any evidence one way or the other that
story is *far* more believable to me than the story told
by the white people. How many Hmong you figure to be on a
jury in Sawyer County, Wisconsin ?


about a dozen less than absolutely necessary for success.

Yeah, that would be my guess too.

Here's the probable cause statement aka Vang's "confession."

http://www.madison.com/item/vang_pc_stmt_signed.pdf

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:01:22 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Wayne Harrison wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
In the absence of any evidence one way or the other that
story is *far* more believable to me than the story told
by the white people. How many Hmong you figure to be on a
jury in Sawyer County, Wisconsin ?


about a dozen less than absolutely necessary for success.

Yeah, that would be my guess too.

Here's the probable cause statement aka Vang's "confession."

http://www.madison.com/item/vang_pc_stmt_signed.pdf

Thanks for the link Ken. Hard read though, Vang stated that Vang
stated ......

Interesting (to me at least) that Gary Gillis felt compelled to detail
Vangs rifle "....Saiga SKS 7.62x39 caliber, serial number....." While
saying only "At the scene there was only one rifle located." without
the details of what kind it was. You'd think that sort of info would
be important. I'm sure they have the info on the other rifle (god I
hope they do) but it smacks of lazy police work that opens the door to
appeal(s), maybe. And it unfairly affects public opinion.

Even in a real wild west sense, once you kill the other guy with the
gun, the fights over. But this guy chased them afterwards? And came
back and said "You're not dead yet"?

I'm not even sure 12 Hmong jurors would acquit him. But I've been
wrong before, notably on October 3, 1995

BTW, yes I do use an anonymous email address, and no, I'm not trying
to hide behind it. I'm just wary about email harvesters, and really
don't want people emailing me unless I say so.

Don

"Donut" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:01:22 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Wayne Harrison wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
In the absence of any evidence one way or the other that
story is *far* more believable to me than the story told
by the white people. How many Hmong you figure to be on a
jury in Sawyer County, Wisconsin ?


about a dozen less than absolutely necessary for success.

Yeah, that would be my guess too.

Here's the probable cause statement aka Vang's "confession."

http://www.madison.com/item/vang_pc_stmt_signed.pdf

Thanks for the link Ken. Hard read though, Vang stated that Vang
stated ......

Interesting (to me at least) that Gary Gillis felt compelled to detail
Vangs rifle "....Saiga SKS 7.62x39 caliber, serial number....." While
saying only "At the scene there was only one rifle located." without
the details of what kind it was. You'd think that sort of info would
be important. I'm sure they have the info on the other rifle (god I
hope they do) but it smacks of lazy police work that opens the door to
appeal(s), maybe. And it unfairly affects public opinion.

Everything affects public opinion to some degree. As we watch events in
this case continue to unfold in the media......and here in ROFF......I'm
sure you'll find little consensus on what is or is not fair. For example,
in a society that prides itself on the legal fiction of a presumption of
innocence, one would like to believe that public opinion would be held in
abeyance at least long enough for the initial garbled news reports to get
sorted out. In fact, most of us have already got a pretty good idea of how
Vang's eventual trial will.....and SHOULD.....work out. Is this fair?

Even in a real wild west sense, once you kill the other guy with the
gun, the fights over. But this guy chased them afterwards? And came
back and said "You're not dead yet"?

For reasons that remain unclear even to me, I've always had a hard time
believing that Gary Cooper demonstrated the best possible reflection of how
real life works.

I've never been in a gun fight myself and, what I suppose to be a normally
active imagination notwithstanding, I really don't ever want to be.
However, I can't help but wonder how I'd react if it ever happened. From
all I've heard and read, what with all the noise and confusion and presumed
ill feelings, the **** can get out of hand real quickly. IF one assumes,
just for the sake of argument, that Vang's version of the situation is
accurate and IF I was in a similar situation, I'm afraid I might lose my
normally steely composure and not only shoot everyone in sight, but also go
out and see who else I could find......hey, I've got all this ammunition
left and it ain't likely I'll be needing it for next year's deer season,
right?

What's more.....sad to say.....I suspect that I wouldn't wait for each
individual I encountered to draw and fire first before unlimbering my own
trusty hog leg and then shooting the gun out of his hand, giving him (or
her, I suppose) a nasty bruise in the process.

I'm not even sure 12 Hmong jurors would acquit him.

I got a shiny new nickel says no jury acquits him.

But I've been
wrong before, notably on October 3, 1995

By the time a verdict is rendered in this case most people outside Wisconsin
and Minnesota will have forgotten about it and I've got another shiny new
nickel says it won't make the national news.

BTW, yes I do use an anonymous email address, and no, I'm not trying
to hide behind it. I'm just wary about email harvesters, and really
don't want people emailing me unless I say so.

Hm.......that sounds a lot like hiding.

Wolfgang

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:18:50 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

(snipped)

For example,
in a society that prides itself on the legal fiction of a presumption of
innocence, one would like to believe that public opinion would be held in
abeyance at least long enough for the initial garbled news reports to get
sorted out. In fact, most of us have already got a pretty good idea of how
Vang's eventual trial will.....and SHOULD.....work out. Is this fair?

Yep. As long as we're not going to be on the jury. The legal fiction
is for the courts. It's a good thing, but doesn't work socially.

Now if we _act_ on our ideas and go try to lynch the alleged killer,
we're under the legal fiction ourselves and find out that jail isn't
so fictional.


Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

snip

BTW, yes I do use an anonymous email address, and no, I'm not trying
to hide behind it. I'm just wary about email harvesters, and really
don't want people emailing me unless I say so.

Hm.......that sounds a lot like hiding.

Heh, you are correct, I AM hiding. But only for the reasons stated.
The only reason I remarked about it was because, being a long time
lurker here, I know that *some* find that anonymous seems to equal
troll. I assure you I'm not. But isn't that what they all say

Probably just go back to lurking now.


Don

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:18:50 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

(snipped)

For example,
in a society that prides itself on the legal fiction of a presumption of
innocence, one would like to believe that public opinion would be held in
abeyance at least long enough for the initial garbled news reports to get
sorted out. In fact, most of us have already got a pretty good idea of how
Vang's eventual trial will.....and SHOULD.....work out. Is this fair?

Yep. As long as we're not going to be on the jury. The legal fiction
is for the courts. It's a good thing, but doesn't work socially.

Now if we _act_ on our ideas and go try to lynch the alleged killer,
we're under the legal fiction ourselves and find out that jail isn't
so fictional.


Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)