Hunter goes Apeshit

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:56 pm

Just saw this and thought I would share.

Article

Do with it as you will.

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:02 pm

What an asshole. Box him up and ship him to Texas.

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:42 pm

Raygun wrote:What an asshole. Box him up and ship him to Texas.

I know, I just have no idea what would possess someone to do something like that. I mean a kid and a teenager!

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:00 pm

MSN has somewhat better coverage. They said this morning that nobody knew for sure who had fired the first shots. It could be that the argument just hit that pitch where nobody should be having guns. All over a deer stand.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:01 pm

This is candy for Anti-Gun Legislators.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:26 pm

Interesting. The local news is saying that the whole thing started because some of the victims told Vang he had to move to a different stand, since he was on private property. Then he went and /got/ his SKS and started shooting them. There's no mention that the (ultimate) victims might have fired first.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:52 pm

That's incredibly unlikely. One crazy person snapping and opening fire on five people is much more probable than five crazy people snapping and opening fire on one. Maybe one of the people who was killed opened fire first, but that doesn't exactly explain why this guy shot the whole lot.

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:01 am

Instant Cash wrote:I know, I just have no idea what would possess someone to do something like that. I mean a kid and a teenager!

I don't know either. I guess we'll find out. In any case it's bullshit, and if it's proven that is guy did it, it should mark the end of his days.

MissTeja wrote:This is candy for Anti-Gun Legislators.

Any incident in which a human being is killed by someone using a firearm is candy for anti-gun legislators. This one being a particularly unusual case will certainly give Feinstein and Schumer the opportunity in the media to give the obligatory "I told you so" speech (even though this particular gun was never covered under the AWB) if they haven't already.

My guess is that Wisconsin will probably come up with a law that will make rifles like the SKS illegal for hunting.

WillyGilligan wrote:They said this morning that nobody knew for sure who had fired the first shots. It could be that the argument just hit that pitch where nobody should be having guns.

Which is pretty unlikely to be the case under a deer stand on the second day of the season.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:03 am

Possible scenario goes like this. During this argument one of the victims points a gun at the guy and it goes off (accident, lousy shot, whatever the reason). Dude retaliiates and hits victim, then realizes that victim's (now pissed off) buddy is there and armed, so he has to take him out as well "in self defense". Others arrive on the scene and everyone is trying their best imitation of a movie SWAT team, which get's dude even more panicked as he goes on a rampage looking for a way to get out of there without being shot himself.

It's more likely that he went nuts, but it's still within reasonable doubt in this situation untill we hear more.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:49 am

The whole SWAT thing is unlikely, as the victims really had only one gun amongst them.

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:11 am

He looks pretty deranged in the photo....

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:52 am

According to local news, the first guys got shot, radioed their buddies for help. A couple of the buddies went to get them, they got shot too. A few more went to get those, and they got shot at as well.

I mean a kid and a teenager!

No kids. The father-son were both adults. And, if you figure everyone's out there in hunting apparel, even telling the woman from the rest probably isn't easy.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:47 am

God damn it.

Motherfucker just had to be a fucking Asian.

There goes our rep as 'inscrutable and evil but certainly not wacked up the fucking head like that white guy' image.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:49 am

Wounded Ronin wrote:He looks pretty deranged in the photo....

They always find the worst fucking photo in the bunch. You never see a picture of a pscyo killer madman that looks like average joe, a hot babe (if female) or someone smart. They always find one where they look evil, sinister and up to no good.

Don't know if this is more "candy" for the anti-gun people then any other gun related crime on this scale such as murder.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:50 am

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:00 pm

I do not know how accurate it was (I am always skeptical of news reports) but I remember reading that there was only one gun total with the victims.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:27 pm

Instant Cash wrote:I do not know how accurate it was (I am always skeptical of news reports) but I remember reading that there was only one gun total with the victims.

I believe it was MSN that said that. I read it, too.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:34 pm

I only read like half the story so this is so misinformed, but five people go hunting with one gun?

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:39 pm

I assumed it was sort of a social thing out at the cabin, and only one or two would go to the blind at once.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:06 pm

Eva dear, if you aren't going to read the article, at least read the other posts....

Thorn wrote:According to local news, the first guys got shot, radioed their buddies for help. A couple of the buddies went to get them, they got shot too. A few more went to get those, and they got shot at as well.

Presumably the first couple guys were the ones with a gun, and the rest all headed out without guns because they were looking to get their buddies to a hospital, not take part in a fire fight.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:16 pm

Oh, come on. Unfounded opinions are /so/ much easier.. :o)

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:38 pm

Well, I can't argue with you there....

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:14 pm

So, I guess 7.62mm rounds have an S damage code?

DarkMage · Post by **DarkMage** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:44 pm

You sure not D damage?

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:02 pm

The hunters were wearing no armor and probably only had 3 body dice. It's pretty unlikely they could have scaled away base D damage at all, and thus they'd all be dead instead of some dead and some injured.

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:32 pm

Wounded Ronin wrote:So, I guess 7.62mm rounds have an S damage code?

Depends on the 7.62mm cartridge. According to moi, the 7.62x39mm (what was used in this case) does 9M. The 7.62x51mm NATO, 30-06 (7.62x63mm) and 7.62x54Rmm all do 9S. The .300 Win Mag does 12S...

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:55 pm

Apparently the Hmong community, that psycho boy Chai is a member of, and the local white hunters haven't been getting on very well for a bit. It's been claimed that the Hmong don't really seem to bother with things like private property and just hunt where they like which has led to some friction.

DarkMage · Post by **DarkMage** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:41 pm

He's claiming he was fired on now. AP/Yahoo [/url]

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:41 pm

There's a suprise.

Minneapolis police said they arrested Chai Vang on Christmas Eve 2001 after he waved a gun and threatened to kill his wife. No charge was filed because she didn't cooperate with authorities, spokesman Ron Reier said. St. Paul police said there had been two domestic violence calls to his home in the past year, but both were resolved without incident.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:38 am

The difficulty here is the laws don't always, and this is changing, do a lot in domestic violence cases. You can't just lock everyone up, there simplely isn't enough room, and it would be disasterous to a lot of families.

America needs to fundamentally change.

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:31 am

Right. Understandable. But if his wife had pressed charges in one of these cases, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. You can't legally own a gun anywhere in the US or buy a hunting license if you've been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge.

National Instant Background Check System wrote:The federally prohibitive criteria outlining the reasons an individual may be precluded from the transfer/possession of a firearm or firearm-related permit, pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 922 (g) and (n), are as follows:

<snip>blah blah blah</snip>

• A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.

That's been law since 1993.

So basically, it's all his stupid wife's fault.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:26 am

Raygun wrote:So basically, it's all his stupid wife's fault.

I realize you're joking, which is why I'm backing away from the soap box, but my god - could you find a slightly /less/ dickish joke to make next time? I'd take it as a personal favor if you did.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:40 am

Excuse me, but isn't it a tenet of anti-gun-control legislation that criminals will keep their guns regardless? That all gun control does is keep guns out of the hands of ordinary people, and leaves them in the hands of criminals?

Even if his wife had reported him, do you think he'd have turned in his guns? Do the cops come and confiscate them if you're convicted of a crime?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:03 pm

In Michigan yes, sometimes. I'll admit that's an area that can use some work, at least in my experience.

But yeah, say he had unregistered guns, and didn't use them in the commision of the crime, well then why would the police look for them? Unless they had reason to search his home, or whereever he may have them stashed then maybe not. But if he used a gun in the commission of the crime, I think it's a safe bet they'll search for them.

I am trying to think of any felon I know from the prison where they didn't find his gun, but I'm coming up blank, which isn't to say there isn't any.

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:51 pm

Thorn wrote:I realize you're joking, which is why I'm backing away from the soap box, but my god - could you find a slightly /less/ dickish joke to make next time? I'd take it as a personal favor if you did.

I apologize if you didn't find it humorous. I'm sure the majority of posters here didn't. Unfortunately, I may not be able to contain myself to making less dickish jokes in the future, especially when they're rooted in the kind of truth that most of us would rather ignore. If she'd pressed charges like she should have and he was convicted of it, it is very unlikely that we would be here talking about this now. I did not intend to sound misogynistic, but a spouse in particular is covered under the law I mentioned. His just happens to be female.

Cain wrote:Excuse me, but isn't it a tenet of anti-gun-control legislation that criminals will keep their guns regardless? That all gun control does is keep guns out of the hands of ordinary people, and leaves them in the hands of criminals?

Well, there's a slight difference between an inner-city gang shooting and a hunter killing other hunters intentionally. One is fairly common, the other is extremely rare. While it is possible that Vang may have gotten a rifle illegally after being convicted of spousal abuse, he most certainly would not have been eligible for a hunting license during the season that requires the use of a firearm. It should be fairly obvious, even to a particularly dense person, that taking a rifle that you posess illegally and hunting with it illegally substantially increases your odds of being thrown in jail for a very long time.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:20 am

Random thought- is this guy going to be able to claim not guilty by reason of insanity? Now I don't know the fine points of the McNaughton rule, but since he didn't try and hide anything- always a major no-no in these defences- could he give it a shot?

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:32 am

Aye, he could give it a shot, but he most likely won't be successful at it. It very rarely is. The self defense angle is his best bet.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:51 am

He won't be able to push the self-defence line unless there is considerable evidence that he did actually act in self defence. For example, the testimony of the dozen or so witnesses.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:33 am

Raygun wrote:I apologize if you didn't find it humorous. I'm sure the majority of posters here didn't. Unfortunately, I may not be able to contain myself to making less dickish jokes in the future, especially when they're rooted in the kind of truth that most of us would rather ignore. If she'd pressed charges like she should have and he was convicted of it, it is very unlikely that we would be here talking about this now. I did not intend to sound misogynistic, but a spouse in particular is covered under the law I mentioned. His just happens to be female.

It's not the truth of it I object to, but the half-truth of it. Yes, if she had pressed charges, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now. No argument there.

Rather it's the presentation of it as if she failed to press charges out of some kind of laziness or apathy or something. Considering they're part of a fairly insular subculture (at least, the Hmong communities here in WI tend to be fairly insular, and since St. Paul is practically just over the border, I don't feel like I'm reaching too far in assuming this to be true for Vang and his family as well), and a pretty traditional one at that (i.e. one that says you don't turn your husband in to the whitey cops for 'having a temper'), choosing to press charges would be an even tougher decision for Mrs. Vang than for most women, and thankfully I've never been there, but I can only imagine it's not the sort of thing you do without a whole lot of trepidation. For a woman who is part of a rather traditional culture, pressing charges would have meant risking losing not only her family, but her entire community.

Besides, considering what /has/ happened, something tells me Vang's not the kind of guy to take his wife pressing charges too well. Sure, we probably wouldn't be talking about Vang going nuts and killing a bunch of hunters, but we might be talking about that guy who went nuts and killed his wife after she had him arrested for abusing her.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:29 am

Well, there's a slight difference between an inner-city gang shooting and a hunter killing other hunters intentionally. One is fairly common, the other is extremely rare. While it is possible that Vang may have gotten a rifle illegally after being convicted of spousal abuse, he most certainly would not have been eligible for a hunting license during the season that requires the use of a firearm. It should be fairly obvious, even to a particularly dense person, that taking a rifle that you posess illegally and hunting with it illegally substantially increases your odds of being thrown in jail for a very long time.

All very well and good, but it doesn't answer the question I have. Namely, if you have guns and are convicted of a crime, how are the laws enforced regarding posession? Do the cops come to your place to confiscate them? Or is it based on an honor system? I honestly don't know; but you're the walking Jane's guide, so I'll defer to your expertise.

I doubt very much that even if he had a conviction for spousal abuse, that he would have turned in his guns willingly. You're a transplanted Texan, would you *ever* voluntarily turn in your guns? And I doubt the cops come and take them, although I really don't know if that's the case. How does this work?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:39 pm

The answer varies from state to state Cain. I'd suggest looking it up in your area.

Raygun · Post by **Raygun** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:40 pm

Thorn wrote:Rather it's the presentation of it as if she failed to press charges out of some kind of laziness or apathy or something.

I suggested no such thing. That was an assumption you made all on your own. Perhaps the reason she didn't press charges was because of fear of retaliation from her husband. Honestly, I don't care why she didn't do it. According to the press, he was waving a gun in her face and threatening to kill her. I don't care what culture you're from, in America, you have the backing of the law in such a case that will prevent that kind of thing from happening ever again. Obviously the guy has issues and she had the opportunity to do something that would prevent something exactly like this from happening. And for whatever reason, she didn't. Now six people are dead.

Besides, considering what /has/ happened, something tells me Vang's not the kind of guy to take his wife pressing charges too well. Sure, we probably wouldn't be talking about Vang going nuts and killing a bunch of hunters, but we might be talking about that guy who went nuts and killed his wife after she had him arrested for abusing her.

Maybe he would have killed her for pressing charges. And maybe my math skills are a little fuzzy, but... Maybe not. Maybe, because of the culture they're part of, involving outside authorities would have really made this guy change his thinking. Maybe her community would have understood that the intervention of the law was a perfectly acceptable response to having her husband wave a gun in her face and threaten her life. We don't know. All we do know is that the perfect opportunity to prevent this tragedy was missed.

Cain wrote:All very well and good, but it doesn't answer the question I have. Namely, if you have guns and are convicted of a crime, how are the laws enforced regarding posession? Do the cops come to your place to confiscate them? Or is it based on an honor system? I honestly don't know; but you're the walking Jane's guide, so I'll defer to your expertise.

Like Paul said, it depends on where you are. Unfortunately local law is one of those things that I can't afford to pay attention to at all times. Considering that this would have been a municipal matter, I can't tell you for sure whether they would have confiscated his guns or not. There's certanly precidence to do such a thing. Considering Minnesota's fairly strict firearm laws, and that he was a resident of a major city (St. Paul), I'm reasonably sure that under the circumstances of the conviction (waving a gun in his wife's face), that the judge would have ordered any firearms confiscated.

I doubt very much that even if he had a conviction for spousal abuse, that he would have turned in his guns willingly. You're a transplanted Texan, would you *ever* voluntarily turn in your guns?

No. But I wouldn't *ever* wave a gun in my wife's face, either.

And I doubt the cops come and take them, although I really don't know if that's the case. How does this work?

The judge orders it, the cops do what the judge tells them.

Sock_Monkey · Post by **Sock_Monkey** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:07 pm

Side note - someone was telling me about this today before I saw it on the news except that they had said it was some bow hunters that had a disagreement about the tree stand. Makes for a considerably different situation... Imagine happening upon that scene. I figured he was full of shit so I had to check it out.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:56 am

Late getting into this, been on vacation.

During this argument one of the victims points a gun at the guy and it goes off (accident, lousy shot, whatever the reason)

Highly unlikely. I was passing through Wisconsin when this was breaking news. My BroLaw's parents live in Wisconsin, and he's right across the border in Minneapolis. They're all avid hunters, and found the notion that hunters would fire upon someone unless directly threatened with shooting themselves highly ludicrous.

There are two basic rules of firearms that are drilled into everyone who has any kind of basic training with them -

1. You do not point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them.
2. You do not shoot a person unless you intend to kill them.

While it's possible they fired first, given this guy's history, it's more likely that he pointed at them first. Now keeping in mind those above rules, people trained with guns tend to assume everyone thinks like them. That means if you point a gun at them, they assume you intend to kill them, and will react accordingly (IE, they'll try to shoot you before you can shoot them).