OT Hunting tragedy in Wisconsin

William Claspy wrote in message ...
On 11/23/04 8:46 AM, in article ,
"George Cleveland" wrote:

the shootist was a Hmong refugee there has been an increase in racial
tensions in addition to the old fights about assault weapons (the gun
was an SKS with a 20 round banana clip)

One of the news reports I read/heard said that the rifle used was a type
used commonly for deer hunting. Is this true? I know next to nothing about
hunting- check that, I know nothing about hunting.

Where semi-auto rifles are legal for hunting, the SKS is certainly not
uncommon. They're cheap, reliable guns with cheap, widely available
ammo--an attractive combination to many hunters. Some states do not
permit the use of semi-auto rifles for hunting (like PA). High
capacity magazines are not illegal, though I cannot imagine a need for
20 rounds to harvest a single deer.

I've read lots of negative stuff about SE Asian 'hunters' lately. I
say 'hunters' because the stories are often about patches of woods
being completely devoid of life. Apparently some folks believe that
SE Asians like to kill everything that moves--chipmunks, bluebirds,
everything. I have no experience with SE Asians in the field.

Tom G

William Claspy wrote in message ...
On 11/23/04 8:46 AM, in article ,
"George Cleveland" wrote:

the shootist was a Hmong refugee there has been an increase in racial
tensions in addition to the old fights about assault weapons (the gun
was an SKS with a 20 round banana clip)

One of the news reports I read/heard said that the rifle used was a type
used commonly for deer hunting. Is this true? I know next to nothing about
hunting- check that, I know nothing about hunting.

Where semi-auto rifles are legal for hunting, the SKS is certainly not
uncommon. They're cheap, reliable guns with cheap, widely available
ammo--an attractive combination to many hunters. Some states do not
permit the use of semi-auto rifles for hunting (like PA). High
capacity magazines are not illegal, though I cannot imagine a need for
20 rounds to harvest a single deer.

I've read lots of negative stuff about SE Asian 'hunters' lately. I
say 'hunters' because the stories are often about patches of woods
being completely devoid of life. Apparently some folks believe that
SE Asians like to kill everything that moves--chipmunks, bluebirds,
everything. I have no experience with SE Asians in the field.

Tom G

On 23 Nov 2004 18:50:36 GMT, ojunk (George Adams)
wrote:

From: Ken Fortenberry

Well, there you have it then. Don't know why they'd even bother
with a trial with damning evidence like that in his background.

Doesn't anybody else think the whole story sounds unbelievable ?
Tell the guy he's on private property, ask him to vacate the
tree stand so he does but then he stops 40 yards away, turns
around and for no reason at all starts blasting away

I don't
know about you, but when I hear an unbelievable story I tend
not to believe it.

So what was it Ken? Mass suicide? All these folks take turns using this guy's
rifle to off themselves? Wait...I know....it's that vast right wing conspiricy
thingy again.

The guy has a past history of violent behavior and disregard for the law. He's
deer hunting with a 20 round magazine attatched to his rifle. (I don't know
Wisconsin law, but I'll bet that's illegal.) He is confronted by an angry
landowner and friends and sent packing. 2+2=?

The only thing I find unbelievable is that none of the victim's group was able
to take him out. THAT'S the part of the story I'd like to hear.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

IMO, given the situation, there'll be no shortage of investigational
resources made available. Assuming them to be relatively unbiased (and
I suspect it won't just be the local constabulary), I'd further suspect
that the evidence will pretty clearly show enough to indicate who fired
first and if the hunters fired whenever, where the bullets went. Given
what I've heard about what _allegedly_ happened, there should be
evidence of bullet(s) and/or the trajectory(s) where they'd be expected
if the hunter(s) fired first.

That said, however, if they fired into the ground 30-40 yards behind
Vang as he was leaving, and did so obviously not aiming at him, while
absolutely wrong on the part of the hunters, it isn't grounds for Vang
to have done what he did - it wouldn't have been self-defense. It would
be, if I were on the jury, a mitigating factor, but the "real-world"
effect of that mitigation for Vang might be meaningless - i.e., if
reports of his history are correct, and he did go on a (even "provoked")
rampage, he'd not ever walk around the streets again.

TC,
R

In article ,
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Donut wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Here's the probable cause statement aka Vang's "confession."

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

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."

I want to know that model/caliber & S/N of that rifle too.

The white people had to have had at least three at the scene
according to their own accounts to the police. Willers fired
at Vang, that's not in dispute only when, Hesebeck stated that
he fired at Vang several times and the rifle found at the scene
belonged to Roidt who Vang claimed was about to use it.

I have a hard time believing that eight hunters had only one gun between
them. The three that were returning to the cabin were probably all
armed.

Repeatedly stating to the press the "only one rifle" between
them lie smells like more than just bad police work to me.

Ditto.

[snip]
Remember Vang is 5'4" 140 lbs. He was surrounded by six large
armed ****ed off cheeseheads one of whom took a shot at him
that had he not crouched down would have hit him.

I have a hard time finding fault with him taking out all 6,
but having said that it's probably not technically legal,
doubtless prudent but not legal, to shoot fleeing cheeseheads
even if they did try to shoot him.

It will be difficult to determine who at whom shot first. It does seem
unlikely that Vang would walk away--to a distance of either 40 yds
(victim estimate) or 100ft (Vang's estimate)--and then just start
shooting. It seems completely reasonable that he would return fire
after being shot at. Like Ken says--prudent but not legal.

For this guy to get aything other than a death sentence is going to
require some pretty convincing evidence that he was returning fire. If
he shot first, he's toast.

Tom G
--
email:remove tt

In article ,
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Donut wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Here's the probable cause statement aka Vang's "confession."

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

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."

I want to know that model/caliber & S/N of that rifle too.

The white people had to have had at least three at the scene
according to their own accounts to the police. Willers fired
at Vang, that's not in dispute only when, Hesebeck stated that
he fired at Vang several times and the rifle found at the scene
belonged to Roidt who Vang claimed was about to use it.

I have a hard time believing that eight hunters had only one gun between
them. The three that were returning to the cabin were probably all
armed.

Repeatedly stating to the press the "only one rifle" between
them lie smells like more than just bad police work to me.

Ditto.

[snip]
Remember Vang is 5'4" 140 lbs. He was surrounded by six large
armed ****ed off cheeseheads one of whom took a shot at him
that had he not crouched down would have hit him.

I have a hard time finding fault with him taking out all 6,
but having said that it's probably not technically legal,
doubtless prudent but not legal, to shoot fleeing cheeseheads
even if they did try to shoot him.

It will be difficult to determine who at whom shot first. It does seem
unlikely that Vang would walk away--to a distance of either 40 yds
(victim estimate) or 100ft (Vang's estimate)--and then just start
shooting. It seems completely reasonable that he would return fire
after being shot at. Like Ken says--prudent but not legal.

For this guy to get aything other than a death sentence is going to
require some pretty convincing evidence that he was returning fire. If
he shot first, he's toast.

Tom G
--
email:remove tt

Tom G wrote:
snip
For this guy to get aything other than a death sentence ...

From:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

"The last execution in Wisconsin took place in 1851. John McCaffry
was executed for drowning his wife in a barrel. The death penalty
was formally abolished in 1853."

--
Ken Fortenberry

(Tom Gibson) wrote in
om:

I've read lots of negative stuff about SE Asian 'hunters' lately. I
say 'hunters' because the stories are often about patches of woods
being completely devoid of life. Apparently some folks believe that
SE Asians like to kill everything that moves--chipmunks, bluebirds,
everything. I have no experience with SE Asians in the field.

Tom G



Man, whenever I hear a nasty story about tracking your deer only to find
three other hunters gutting it out, and you're afraid to say anything
because they're big guys holding guns, the offenders always seem to be
white.

Not every hunter is a sportsman.

Scott

(Tom Gibson) wrote in
om:

I've read lots of negative stuff about SE Asian 'hunters' lately. I
say 'hunters' because the stories are often about patches of woods
being completely devoid of life. Apparently some folks believe that
SE Asians like to kill everything that moves--chipmunks, bluebirds,
everything. I have no experience with SE Asians in the field.

Tom G



Man, whenever I hear a nasty story about tracking your deer only to find
three other hunters gutting it out, and you're afraid to say anything
because they're big guys holding guns, the offenders always seem to be
white.

Not every hunter is a sportsman.

Scott

In article ,
Scott Seidman wrote:
(Tom Gibson) wrote in
om:
I've read lots of negative stuff about SE Asian 'hunters' lately. I
say 'hunters' because the stories are often about patches of woods
being completely devoid of life. Apparently some folks believe that
SE Asians like to kill everything that moves--chipmunks, bluebirds,
everything. I have no experience with SE Asians in the field.

Tom G

Man, whenever I hear a nasty story about tracking your deer only to find
three other hunters gutting it out, and you're afraid to say anything
because they're big guys holding guns, the offenders always seem to be
white.

Not every hunter is a sportsman.

No doubt. Many a white 'hunter' has shot another over a tree stand or
less. The ranks of poachers in the US are primarily white and often
quite proud of their illegal harvests. I've met assholes in the woods
(all of them white, btw) though I've never been around when one guy even
pointed his rifle at another.

Tom G
--
email:remove tt

In article ,
Scott Seidman wrote:
(Tom Gibson) wrote in
om:
I've read lots of negative stuff about SE Asian 'hunters' lately. I
say 'hunters' because the stories are often about patches of woods
being completely devoid of life. Apparently some folks believe that
SE Asians like to kill everything that moves--chipmunks, bluebirds,
everything. I have no experience with SE Asians in the field.

Tom G

Man, whenever I hear a nasty story about tracking your deer only to find
three other hunters gutting it out, and you're afraid to say anything
because they're big guys holding guns, the offenders always seem to be
white.

Not every hunter is a sportsman.

No doubt. Many a white 'hunter' has shot another over a tree stand or
less. The ranks of poachers in the US are primarily white and often
quite proud of their illegal harvests. I've met assholes in the woods
(all of them white, btw) though I've never been around when one guy even
pointed his rifle at another.

Tom G
--
email:remove tt