Chai Vang

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

During my walk with my dog today I recalled this case that happened in 2004 about a Hmong guy who shot dead 6 white guys in self defence while he was out hunting.

I had always wondered what happened and the outcome of the trial so I did a little research only to find that Chai Vang was senteanced to life in prison without parole by an all white jury in bumpkin territory of Wisconsin.

Brother Chai was out hunting and accidentally wandered into private property.

He was told to leave and verbally abused. Called a "fcuking gook" multiple times.

He left the property but was then way laid by 8 white hunters who further abused him and even blocked his exit from the forrest path.

Chai was then shot at by one of the hunters and he returned fire on the party that accosted him. Chai won the gun fight but miraculously law enforcement cannot find the spent cartridge fired by the white hunter. They miraculously found all of Chai's.

Watching this documentary game me a heavy heart. There is no justice for Asians.

 

[Azadkashmir]

isnt this quite common, black folks know this type of setups.

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

isnt this quite common, black folks know this type of setups.

Far too common in the land of immigrants.

Apparently one immigrant group treats all others as sub humans.

 

[Azadkashmir]

Far too common in the land of immigrants.

Apparently one immigrant group treats all others as sub humans.

You mean white folks lolz they see themselves as legitimate owners of america.
Native Americans are stuck on reservations. But the Zionist jew runs the show through the banks.

 

[jhungary]

Far too common in the land of immigrants.

Apparently one immigrant group treats all others as sub humans.

​

Lets talk about law and investigation.

The opposing argument is that, in a nut shell.

Common Side of the story -

Vang was hunting with his 2 friends and his 2 sons in northern Wisconsin, they stumble on a private property and were asked to leave by the property owner when he was challenged. He starting to leave the properties, and the owner and his party chase him to try and get Vang hunting license to report to DNR

Vang Perspective -

One of the hunter start firing at him for reason or reason(s) unknown. Vang fire back, hitting one of the hunter. Then 5 other descents on the scenes, firing was exchanged, and Vang was hit once, while 6 out of 8 hunting party with the owner was shot by 20 rounds, fired by Vang for self-defence

Owner Party Perspective

During the incident, Vang shot at Willer first after challenge, walked about 40 yards, Vang take off the scope of his rifle, then turn around and shoot at the party as the party was leaving, a gun fight ensue with at least 1 shot fired by Lauren Hesebeck, none of the shell casing Vang alleged the party fired was recovered. 6 more hunter (Lauren Hesebeck claim was unarmed) arrive to the gunfight trying to rescue Willer and was shot at. The gun fight ends with Vang shot and killed 4 hunter in the back, with 2 more died with multiple GSW.

Factual Evidence

4 out of 8 victim was killed by a single bullet (7.62x39mm) from behind
2 Victim was killed by multiple gun shot wound to the front of the victim.
20 casing was recovered by Law Enforcement agent from Vang Saiga rifle
Vang admitted in court to have shot at least 1 hunter in the back.
No shell casing was found by the hunting party.
Lauren (One of the survivor) admitted in court at least 1 round was fired by the party
Vang was in private property when the shooting incident happens.

On the trial -

Vang pleaded not guilt by reason of "Self-Defence"
Vang was asked by prosecutor "Did Mr Crotteau deserve to die?" Vang replies. Yes
Vang was asked why he shot 2 hunter from behind, vang replies, they deserved to die because they are disrespectful him
Vang was ask why he continue shooting at the hunter, Vang replies, he was fear for his life, so he shot the hunter in the back, sometime multiple time.


Lawyer opinion.

Asked my wife about this case, giving the circumstance on the case released to public, the conviction of Vang for premeditated murder is the right judgement.

Reason 1. Disproportional use of Force

My wife pointed out, if you are scare of someone, when they turn their back on you, you run away, shooting a person or person(s) when their back is against goes against the principle of "Self-Defence" and since this is collaborated by evidence (4 of the 8 hunters was shot in the back) as well as Vang himself admitted he shot 2 hunter in the back, also several of the victim was shot multiple time, this is evidence that this is not a self defence shooting.

Reason 2. This incident happened on private properties, and Vang was noted as such.

The incident happened on a private property, which one of the owner Vang had killed. Would suggest a motivated attack by either Vang or the Owner Party. However, judging from the fact 9 people were shot (including Vang) and 8 with multiple gunshot wound, unlikely is that the owner party started the physical altercation, because Vang would most likely be dead.

Reason 3. Physical evidence did not match up with Vang testimony.

Vang testified that he scare of the owner party, but he also testified that he believe the first challenger (Terry Willer) was the ONLY person that have a weapon with the group, which he gunned down at 0 second. Afterward Vang testified that he was under direct threat and was forced to killed those people. Physical evidence however, suggested that 2 of the hunter was running away and shot from behind. Lauren was shot in the shoulder. Joey Crotteau was shot first in the leg, and was found lying face down with a bullet to the back that killed him.

What might happened?

Vang may have been lost during his hunting course with his friend and drifted into a private property, the owner of the property challenge him, and ask for his hunting license, prior knowledge suggest that the owner have problem with Hmong Hunter before, and may resort to racist comment.

Vang at this point shot the hunter that challenge him, When the rest of the group arrive to render help unarmed, Vang shot each of the member in cold blood. After armed hunter hear the call and go into the scene to investigate. Vang decided to leave the scene quote in court "He don't want to challenge the second batch of hunter because they were armed)

@Hamartia Antidote @Gomig-21

isnt this quite common, black folks know this type of setups.

So, you called shooting unarmed people in the back and charge for murder is a set up?

 

[Azadkashmir]

Lets talk about law and investigation.

The opposing argument is that, in a nut shell.

Common Side of the story -

Vang was hunting with his 2 friends and his 2 sons in northern Wisconsin, they stumble on a private property and were asked to leave by the property owner when he was challenged. He starting to leave the properties, and the owner and his party chase him to try and get Vang hunting license to report to DNR

Vang Perspective -

One of the hunter start firing at him for reason or reason(s) unknown. Vang fire back, hitting one of the hunter. Then 5 other descents on the scenes, firing was exchanged, and Vang was hit once, while 6 out of 8 hunting party with the owner was shot by 20 rounds, fired by Vang for self-defence

Owner Party Perspective

During the incident, Vang shot at Willer first after challenge, walked about 40 yards, Vang take off the scope of his rifle, then turn around and shoot at the party as the party was leaving, a gun fight ensue with at least 1 shot fired by Lauren Hesebeck, none of the shell casing Vang alleged the party fired was recovered. 6 more hunter (Lauren Hesebeck claim was unarmed) arrive to the gunfight trying to rescue Willer and was shot at. The gun fight ends with Vang shot and killed 4 hunter in the back, with 2 more died with multiple GSW.

Factual Evidence

4 out of 8 victim was killed by a single bullet (7.62x39mm) from behind
2 Victim was killed by multiple gun shot wound to the front of the victim.
20 casing was recovered by Law Enforcement agent from Vang Saiga rifle
Vang admitted in court to have shot at least 1 hunter in the back.
No shell casing was found by the hunting party.
Lauren (One of the survivor) admitted in court at least 1 round was fired by the party
Vang was in private property when the shooting incident happens.

On the trial -

Vang pleaded not guilt by reason of "Self-Defence"
Vang was asked by prosecutor "Did Mr Crotteau deserve to die?" Vang replies. Yes
Vang was asked why he shot 2 hunter from behind, vang replies, they deserved to die because they are disrespectful him
Vang was ask why he continue shooting at the hunter, Vang replies, he was fear for his life, so he shot the hunter in the back, sometime multiple time.


Lawyer opinion.

Asked my wife about this case, giving the circumstance on the case released to public, the conviction of Vang for premeditated murder is the right judgement.

Reason 1. Disproportional use of Force

My wife pointed out, if you are scare of someone, when they turn their back on you, you run away, shooting a person or person(s) when their back is against goes against the principle of "Self-Defence" and since this is collaborated by evidence (4 of the 8 hunters was shot in the back) as well as Vang himself admitted he shot 2 hunter in the back, also several of the victim was shot multiple time, this is evidence that this is not a self defence shooting.

Reason 2. This incident happened on private properties, and Vang was noted as such.

The incident happened on a private property, which one of the owner Vang had killed. Would suggest a motivated attack by either Vang or the Owner Party. However, judging from the fact 9 people were shot (including Vang) and 8 with multiple gunshot wound, unlikely is that the owner party started the physical altercation, because Vang would most likely be dead.

Reason 3. Physical evidence did not match up with Vang testimony.

Vang testified that he scare of the owner party, but he also testified that he believe the first challenger (Terry Willer) was the ONLY person that have a weapon with the group, which he gunned down at 0 second. Afterward Vang testified that he was under direct threat and was forced to killed those people. Physical evidence however, suggested that 2 of the hunter was running away and shot from behind. Lauren was shot in the shoulder. Joey Crotteau was shot first in the leg, and was found lying face down with a bullet to the back that killed him.

What might happened?

Vang may have been lost during his hunting course with his friend and drifted into a private property, the owner of the property challenge him, and ask for his hunting license, prior knowledge suggest that the owner have problem with Hmong Hunter before, and may resort to racist comment.

Vang at this point shot the hunter that challenge him, When the rest of the group arrive to render help unarmed, Vang shot each of the member in cold blood. After armed hunter hear the call and go into the scene to investigate. Vang decided to leave the scene quote in court "He don't want to challenge the second batch of hunter because they were armed)

@Hamartia Antidote @Gomig-21



So, you called shooting unarmed people in the back and charge for murder is a set up?

its america land of deception.

 

[jhungary]

its america land of deception.

He (Vang) admitted he shot 2 of the people in the back in the video above, have you watch it?

He said, he shot them because they disrespect him.

You don't shoot people in the back for self defence.

And his story about how he get to have his rifle in his arms, really stint.

He said he drop to his right (but he make a left gesture at the court) and then he say is gun was sling to the right so he change his word and say he drop to his left.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The guy claimed self defense but shot many of them multiple times in

Lets talk about law and investigation.

The opposing argument is that, in a nut shell.

Common Side of the story -

Vang was hunting with his 2 friends and his 2 sons in northern Wisconsin, they stumble on a private property and were asked to leave by the property owner when he was challenged. He starting to leave the properties, and the owner and his party chase him to try and get Vang hunting license to report to DNR

Vang Perspective -

One of the hunter start firing at him for reason or reason(s) unknown. Vang fire back, hitting one of the hunter. Then 5 other descents on the scenes, firing was exchanged, and Vang was hit once, while 6 out of 8 hunting party with the owner was shot by 20 rounds, fired by Vang for self-defence

Owner Party Perspective

During the incident, Vang shot at Willer first after challenge, walked about 40 yards, Vang take off the scope of his rifle, then turn around and shoot at the party as the party was leaving, a gun fight ensue with at least 1 shot fired by Lauren Hesebeck, none of the shell casing Vang alleged the party fired was recovered. 6 more hunter (Lauren Hesebeck claim was unarmed) arrive to the gunfight trying to rescue Willer and was shot at. The gun fight ends with Vang shot and killed 4 hunter in the back, with 2 more died with multiple GSW.

Factual Evidence

4 out of 8 victim was killed by a single bullet (7.62x39mm) from behind
2 Victim was killed by multiple gun shot wound to the front of the victim.
20 casing was recovered by Law Enforcement agent from Vang Saiga rifle
Vang admitted in court to have shot at least 1 hunter in the back.
No shell casing was found by the hunting party.
Lauren (One of the survivor) admitted in court at least 1 round was fired by the party
Vang was in private property when the shooting incident happens.

On the trial -

Vang pleaded not guilt by reason of "Self-Defence"
Vang was asked by prosecutor "Did Mr Crotteau deserve to die?" Vang replies. Yes
Vang was asked why he shot 2 hunter from behind, vang replies, they deserved to die because they are disrespectful him
Vang was ask why he continue shooting at the hunter, Vang replies, he was fear for his life, so he shot the hunter in the back, sometime multiple time.


Lawyer opinion.

Asked my wife about this case, giving the circumstance on the case released to public, the conviction of Vang for premeditated murder is the right judgement.

Reason 1. Disproportional use of Force

My wife pointed out, if you are scare of someone, when they turn their back on you, you run away, shooting a person or person(s) when their back is against goes against the principle of "Self-Defence" and since this is collaborated by evidence (4 of the 8 hunters was shot in the back) as well as Vang himself admitted he shot 2 hunter in the back, also several of the victim was shot multiple time, this is evidence that this is not a self defence shooting.

Reason 2. This incident happened on private properties, and Vang was noted as such.

The incident happened on a private property, which one of the owner Vang had killed. Would suggest a motivated attack by either Vang or the Owner Party. However, judging from the fact 9 people were shot (including Vang) and 8 with multiple gunshot wound, unlikely is that the owner party started the physical altercation, because Vang would most likely be dead.

Reason 3. Physical evidence did not match up with Vang testimony.

Vang testified that he scare of the owner party, but he also testified that he believe the first challenger (Terry Willer) was the ONLY person that have a weapon with the group, which he gunned down at 0 second. Afterward Vang testified that he was under direct threat and was forced to killed those people. Physical evidence however, suggested that 2 of the hunter was running away and shot from behind. Lauren was shot in the shoulder. Joey Crotteau was shot first in the leg, and was found lying face down with a bullet to the back that killed him.

What might happened?

Vang may have been lost during his hunting course with his friend and drifted into a private property, the owner of the property challenge him, and ask for his hunting license, prior knowledge suggest that the owner have problem with Hmong Hunter before, and may resort to racist comment.

Vang at this point shot the hunter that challenge him, When the rest of the group arrive to render help unarmed, Vang shot each of the member in cold blood. After armed hunter hear the call and go into the scene to investigate. Vang decided to leave the scene quote in court "He don't want to challenge the second batch of hunter because they were armed)

@Hamartia Antidote @Gomig-21



So, you called shooting unarmed people in the back and charge for murder is a set up?

Yeah this was a tough one when both sides are jerks. Certainly I can see intimidation but he was just as bad with blindly shooting everybody (with some who were running away shot back). They are dead and he is in jail for life.

 

[jhungary]

The guy claimed self defense but shot many of them multiple times in


Yeah this was a tough one when both sides are jerks. Certainly I can see intimidation but he was just as bad with blindly shooting everybody (with some who were running away shot back). They are dead and he is in jail for life.

Well, my wife said He (Vang) testified that he reload the weapon is what seal his fate, you most likely cannot claim self-defence, because you have time to reload, you have time to retreat.

Both side a jerks, that's for sure, but I don't think being a jerk is punishable by death...…

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Well, my wife said He (Vang) testified that he reload the weapon is what seal his fate, you most likely cannot claim self-defence, because you have time to reload, you have time to retreat.

Both side a jerks, that's for sure, but I don't think being a jerk is punishable by death...…

Well certainly reloading was the key to his long sentence. He has no case.

 

[jhungary]

Well certainly reloading was the key to his long sentence. He has no case.

That's his lawyer problem, his lawyer didn't do a very good job.

First of all, he let Vang on the stand, which is a big mistake, he already have a psych evaluation and say Vang have a tendency to blame his victim, and he still make him on the stand, and guess what he do? He blame the victim ffs. He said, it wasn't his fault, it's because these white folks call him name.

Second of all, his lawyer should drop the race argument and go for something like provoked attack or something like that, instead of calling for self defence, my wife said his lawyer basically gamble an "All-or-Nothing" charge and gun for self defence, and he lost (and he would lose before the trial started) Instead, he should have claim Vang lost his cool after being verbally abused and gun for second degree murder or first degree manslaughter charge, at least it would be a life with sentence, not a life without sentence.

But then he have to go play the race card.....

 

[Gomig-21]

What might happened?

Vang may have been lost during his hunting course with his friend and drifted into a private property, the owner of the property challenge him, and ask for his hunting license, prior knowledge suggest that the owner have problem with Hmong Hunter before, and may resort to racist comment.

Yeah, this kinda thing happens a lot when private property is barely delineated or defined for hunting parties who aren't familiar with the area. Every time we go out -- and especially in an area we aren't familiar with -- we have marked maps that we've checked with the local zoning board to know exactly where private property lines are (we also carry GPS now) because people make a huge fuss about you trickling through their land. So it's very important to be prepared with that knowledge and you want to know where you are just for safety reasons, especially in very large parks and forests.

The other point you mentioned is also pretty interesting and that is when they supposedly asked him for his hunting license; well, just like a driver's license the same rule applies and that is I am not obligated to show a civilian my hunting license, even if I've encroached onto his property. What I would say is that ok, I've made a mistake and I will leave now and I am only obligated to show my hunting license to official authorities. These people here can ask all they want, but he was not obligated to show them his hunting license.

Both parties took this thing too far with obviously this guy going way overboard and killing 6 people. But the other ones, getting on ATVs and chasing him down and making a huge confrontation about it isn't really smart either because of exactly what happened. One person is going to be severely intimidated by 8 aggressively and racially abusive posse.

The other part like the one sheriff mentioned in the video is that there are many cases where people claim certain lands as private property or extend their own lands because they don't want hunters, bikers, hikers etc. anywhere near their property. So they do tend to purposely "expand" the property lines.

Vang at this point shot the hunter that challenge him, When the rest of the group arrive to render help unarmed, Vang shot each of the member in cold blood. After armed hunter hear the call and go into the scene to investigate. Vang decided to leave the scene quote in court "He don't want to challenge the second batch of hunter because they were armed)

@Hamartia Antidote @Gomig-21

That's his lawyer problem, his lawyer didn't do a very good job.

I think it's pretty obvious the lawyer was a public defender and in a big, local case like this, he wasn't going to work very hard for a Hmong, unfortunately. He could've done A LOT more for that guy, even if he was guilty.

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

well they say the whites will become minority by mid-century, maybe by then they will get a taste of their own medicine.. I think the latinos at somepoint will gang up, march into those all white suburbs and start killing every living thing...with their machete

 

[jhungary]

Yeah, this kinda thing happens a lot when private property is barely delineated or defined for hunting parties who aren't familiar with the area. Every time we go out -- and especially in an area we aren't familiar with -- we have marked maps that we've checked with the local zoning board to know exactly where private property lines are (we also carry GPS now) because people make a huge fuss about you trickling through their land. So it's very important to be prepared with that knowledge and you want to know where you are just for safety reasons, especially in very large parks and forests.

The other point you mentioned is also pretty interesting and that is when they supposedly asked him for his hunting license; well, just like a driver's license the same rule applies and that is I am not obligated to show a civilian my hunting license, even if I've encroached onto his property. What I would say is that ok, I've made a mistake and I will leave now and I am only obligated to show my hunting license to official authorities. These people here can ask all they want, but he was not obligated to show them his hunting license.

Both parties took this thing too far with obviously this guy going way overboard and killing 6 people. But the other ones, getting on ATVs and chasing him down and making a huge confrontation about it isn't really smart either because of exactly what happened. One person is going to be severely intimidated by 8 aggressively and racially abusive posse.

The other part like the one sheriff mentioned in the video is that there are many cases where people claim certain lands as private property or extend their own lands because they don't want hunters, bikers, hikers etc. anywhere near their property. So they do tend to purposely "expand" the property lines.

What I will say is that this case will only make sense judging from the scene and all the evidence I could gather is that he have taken the insult too far, and he snap, because there aren't many evidence suggesting a physical aggression did taken place before Vang fire the shots

The grand problem of who fired first is actually not quite matter in this case, because the moment he reloaded his fire and continue firing, that render the whole self defence element out of the window, and at that point, he progress into a premeditated phase, and from then on, that's murder one.

Problem is that, while what you said is true, the question remain, Vang could have left the place with or without being challenged by the party, but he didn't if I feel intimated, I will find an opening and egress from there, I will not stay and take on the posse, whether or not the posse is aggressive is beside the point, actual evidence suggested that he shot at least 4 of the posse in their back, suggest a moment he could have at least disengage from the posse, he chose not to. That is leading to his conviction.

On the other hand, I do believe the party have throw racist insult toward Vang and unnecessarily escalate the whole thing, they are dumb and most likely racist, but then again, they don't deserve to die because of being dumb and stupid, for which Vang himself said in court that some of them deserve to die because they insult him (Which I found very amusing...…you may as well shoot yourself in the foot while you are at it.)

I think it's pretty obvious the lawyer was a public defender and in a big, local case like this, he wasn't going to work very hard for a Hmong, unfortunately. He could've done A LOT more for that guy, even if he was guilty.

I don't think his lawyer is a public defender, most of them don't like heavy workload and they will simply pled the case down, which is what Vang supposed to do in the first place. From the beginning to the end, his lawyer is trying to play a race card, which is an all or nothing defence. Which at the end the defence team ignore the very overwhelming evidence.

And putting Vang himself on the stand is basically a big no-no, he is the key why he is convicted of 6 murder one, he got himself to blame for that outcome.

His lawyer could have done a lot of thing to Vang, but that was not the case, as for why? Nobody knows, perhaps they think it is enough to simply played the race card, or the prosecution didn't give any leeway Vang? Nobody knows as we weren't there in the trial. But one thing for certain, Vang himself is the bomb, he incriminate himself on the stance, and make stupid remark about the victim, which his lawyer was supposed to know it will happened because they should have by then the psych report citing Vang have a tendency to blame the victim for his action...

well they say the whites will become minority by mid-century, maybe by then they will get a taste of their own medicine.. I think the latinos at somepoint will gang up, march into those all white suburbs and start killing every living thing...with their machete

You do know most "Latino" are white, right? And Latino don't use machete.

 

[Azadkashmir]

well they say the whites will become minority by mid-century, maybe by then they will get a taste of their own medicine.. I think the latinos at somepoint will gang up, march into those all white suburbs and start killing every living thing...with their machete