one of us
| I have spent considerable time in the private security field and worked for the R.C.M.P. as a gaol guard; this has involved much contact with a very wide variety of criminals of every race and age group, for nearly two decades. I do not think that the death penalty is in any way a guarantor of public safety or a deterent to criminal behaviour, violent or otherwise. I have discussed this with a number of longterm criminals, including killers.
There is absolutely nothing that can excuse even one wrongful death by state execution; this is the very antithesis of freedom and democracy. In this case, this Hmong is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and his race, age, past behaviour or personal B.O. have sweet fuck-all to do with it.
I wonder, if this were several dope dealing "Niggers" from the slums of Detroit or some "Greasers" from the barrios of Los Angeles, that had been blown away by a nice, Mom and Apple Pie kid with freckles and blue-blonde from Ourtown, USA, whether the rhetoric would be quite so strident and righteous. A killer is a killer, and we are all innocent until we are proven guilty. Those among us who rant about the American or Canadian way, as I certainly do, need to remember this, IMO.
If, this guy is guilty, he should spend the rest of his life in a prison that is part of a regional garbage recycling facility, providing free labour to do something environmentally beneficial. Any profits from this endeavour should be given to surviving family members of his victims and he should live under spartan conditions. Physical discipline, such as the old British "cat'o'nine tails" should be used to keep him and his fellow "cons" in line. THAT, would be something like real justice! |
| | | Posts: 1379 | Location: British Columbia | Registered: 02 October 2004 | 
IP
|
|
One of Us
| Why anyone would be inclined to defend this murderous POS is beyond my comprehension. The writing is on the wall. There is absoloutly no excuse for his conduct. The real trajedy of all of may be yet to come, expect the race card to come out in full force. Why, because it is known to work. You can see some of our pals with liberal tendancies already applying it. But I doubt if this guy has enough money to be the next Orenthall. Life in prison is too good for that excrement. I suppose some of you think that if Hitler were found alive that excecuting him would have been "wrongfull death by state execution" as well. HELLO!! ANYBODY IN THERE???  That is the very "lets play nice" mindset that is the scourge of our justice system and our military, it only encourages ruthless behavior. There is indeed a fine line between being weak and becoming the tyrant in dealing out justice. That is why the founding fathers wisley left it in the hands of those with judgement as opposed to fast hard rules. But this guy clearly has no reguard for human life, why should he be met with compassion? It makes no sense. Wstrnhuntr stepping down from the soapbox.. |
| | | Posts: 10166 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| It appears as though you consider my intellectual capacity to be somewhat limited as demonstrated by your ...HELLO, ANYBODY IN THERE...jibe; may I politely suggest that you should learn to spell commonplace words such as ...wrongful... before you criticise others.?
As it happens, I remember very clearly an incident here in Canada, where a man whom most now are convinced was innocent was hanged, this is NOT my idea of "justice". It is a most serious infringement upon both individual and communal freedoms, although you obviously find that rather difficult to understand; it was exactly this sort of thing that led to the American Rebellion.
Freedom is defined most precisely by how we interpret and apply our various laws in the most demanding and complex circumstances, not by the "Judge Roy Bean" attitude expressed in far too many of the posts on this issue. This suspect has as much right to a fair defense as you or I would; this is a tradition that goes back to Magna Carta and the evolution of English Law, long before your...founding fathers wisley...ever existed.
But, he's a Gook, so, WTF, he ain't a REAL Amurican......... |
| | | Posts: 1379 | Location: British Columbia | Registered: 02 October 2004 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| For those that haven't downloaded the .pdf file of the Probable Cause Statement, here's the text: Quote:
Sawyer County Probable Cause
Statement in case of Chai Soua
Vang, released Nov. 23, 2004
Editors note: The below information contains
graphic information and content some people
may consider offensive.
Probable Cause Statement
Chai Soua Vang 09-24-1968
810 4th Street
St. Paul, MN 55106
On November 21, 2004 at 12:30 p.m. Sawyer
County Sheriff�s investigator Gary Gillis was contacted by chief deputy Tim Zeigle who advised that there
has been a shooting with multiple victims in southern Sawyer County. Chief Deputy Tim Zeigle requested
that investigator Gary Gillis respond to the scene.
November 21, 2004 was the second day of the 2004 Wisconsin rifle deer season.
Investigator Gary Gillis was advised that the incident occurred in the woods behind a cabin at 394N Deer
Lake Road in the town of Meteor in Sawyer County, Wisconsin. Investigator Gary Gillis learned that there
had been some sort of dispute that developed between a hunting party at 394N Deer Lake Road and at
the time an unknown male subject of Asian descent. Reports indicated that the Asian male wandered onto
property owned by Terry Willers and Robert Crotteau. The Asian male was located sitting in a tree stand
on the private property. The asian male was confronted by Terry Willers and told by Willers to leave the
property. Willers used a walkie talkie to advise the rest of the hunting party that were located at the cabin
that Willers told the subject to leave and Willers was going to wait and make sure the subject left.
Lauren Hesebeck was able to provide the following information. At this point Robert Crotteau, Joe
Crotteau, Lauren Hesebeck, Dennis Drew and Mark Roidt left the cabin and went to Willers location.
During another verbal exchange with the Asian male one of the members of the property owner�s party
wrote the back tag number of the Asian male subject in the dirt on a �mule� which is a 2 side-by-side seat
ATV. The back tag number that was written down was 0685505. The Asian male was also advised that law
enforcement was going to be called.
Records check of the back tag indicated that the tag was registered to Chai Vang 09-24-1968, 810 4th ST
E, St Paul MN 55106. 5�04� 145 lbs black hair and brown eyes. Vang was later arrested and was in
possession of this back tag. The Asian male from this point will be referred to as Vang.
Vang started to walk a way and got approximately 40 yards a way. Then Vang appeared to remove the
scope from his rifle and turned around and started shooting. Vang shot several times and hit Willers. Prior
to being shot Willers returned fire but did not hit Vang. Vang shot several more shots and struck Dennis
Drew and Mark Roidt. Lauren Hesebeck attempted to hide behind the �mule� but Vang moved around the
�mule� and shot Lauren Hesebeck in the shoulder. Robert and Joe Crotteau ran away from the scene.
Vang then pursued Robert and Joe. Both Robert and Joe were located away from the initial scene and had
been shot to death.
While Vang was pursuing Robert and Joe, Lauren Hesebeck was able to call on the walkie talkie to the
cabin and advised that he had been shot and needed help. Help arrived and removed Terry Willers from
the scene. A short time later Lauren heard another ATV approaching and then heard more gun shots.
Lauren advised that Vang then appeared again where the shooting originally started. Lauren Hesebeck
heard Vang say something like �one of you fuckers are still alive�. Lauren Hesebeck indicated that he
returned fire at that time but is unsure how many times.
Robert Crotteau, Joey Crotteau, Mark Roidt, Jessica Willers and Allan Laski were all deceased at the scene
from what appeared to be gun shot wounds.
Terry Willers was shot in the neck and was taken to the hospital. Dennis Drew was shot in the abdomen
and was transported to the hospital. Lauren Hesebeck was shot in the shoulder and was transported to the
hospital.
On November 22, 2004 investigator Gary Gillis was advised that Dennis Drew had also died from the
wound he received.
Vang was later apprehended by Wisconsin DNR Warden Jeremy Peery. Vang was still in possession of his
hunting gear, including back tag and also his rifle. The rifle was a Saiga SKS 7.62x39 caliber, serial
number HO-3104079. Vang did not have any ammunition with him when taken into custody. Vang made
no comments to Warden Peery.
On November 22, 2004 at approximately 10:15 a.m. investigator Gary Gillis and FBI agent Ken
Mammoser interviewed Chai Vang at the Sawyer County Jail. Vang was read his Miranda rlghts which
Vang indicated that he understood and also signed the form indicating that he understood them.
Investigator Gary Gillis also asked Vang if Vang could read and write the English language. Vang stated
that he could. Investigator Gary Gillis asked Vang to read out loud the waiver of Miranda rights. Vang read
the waiver out loud to investigator Gary Gillis and S/A Mammoser. Vang stated that he understood the
waiver but at this time wished to talk to a lawyer first before making a statement. At this point the
interview ended.
At approximately 10:30 a.m. Investigator Gary Gillis was contacted by the on duty jailer. Investigator
Gary Gillis was advised that while jailer Frank Metzinger was going to move Vang back to Vang�s cell,
Vang advised Metzinger that Vang was willing to talk to investigators. Investigator Gary Gillis advised Lt.
Kurt Barthel of this and advised that the request by Vang needed to be in writing. Lt. Barthel then met with
Vang and gave Vang a Sawyer County Jail inmate request form. Vang wrote out and signed the form.
Vang wrote �I would like to talk to the investigator now. I don�t want a lawyer at this time.� Investigator
Gary Gillis and S/A Mammoser again met with Vang in the interview room at the Sawyer County Jail.
Investigator Gary Gillis showed Vang the inmate request form and asked Vang if Vang had filled it out and
signed it. Vang indicated that he did. Investigator Gary Gillis advised Vang that Investigator Gary Gillis
needed to read Vang his Miranda rights again. Vang stated that he understood. Investigator Gary Gillis
read the Miranda rights and Vang stated that he understood his rights. Investigator Gary Gillis then
advised Vang to read the waiver of rights which Vang did and signed the waiver of rights at 10:35 a.m.
indicating that Vang wanted to talk with investigator Gary Gillis and S/A Mammoser.
Vang stated that Vang had been hunting on public land and got lost. Vang stated that Vang located a tree
stand next to a swamp. Nobody was in the stand so Vang climbed into it. Vang stated that after
approximately 15 minutes another hunter approached Vang. the hunter asked Vang �Why are you in the
stand, you�re on private property,� Vang stated that Vang told the subject that Vang did not know that the
land was private and that Vang did not see any �no trespassing� signs. Vang stated that Vang climbed
down and started to walk away. Vang stated that while walking away Vang heard the other male subject
call on a walkie talkie. Vang did not hear what was said.
Vang stated that a few moments later 2 ATV�s approached his location with 5 or 6 guys on them. Vana
stated that Vang was confronted by this group also. Vang stated that one of the subjects that Vang
believed to be the owner of the property stated �why were you in my son�s stand�? Vang stated that Vang
told the man that Vang did not know it was private land. And that Vang did not see any signs indicating
that land was private. Vang stated that this man stated �you just trespassed through 400 acres of private
land.� Vang stated that the others in the group surrounded Vang. Vang stated that the man that Vang
thought to be the owner then started calling Vang names like �gook, chink, fucking asian.� Vang stated
that at this point the only one that Vang saw with a gun was the first subject that kicked Vang out of the
stand.
Vang stated that Vang was told to get off the fucking property and never come back. Vang stated that at
one point they wrote down his license number and stated that they were going to call the law
enforcement. Vang stated that some of the others in the group started calling Vang names (gook, chink)
and were also swearing at Vang, Vang stated that Vang started walking a way and got approximately 20
yards a way and turned around and observed the man that had the rifle walking towards the rest of the
group, Vang also observed the man take the rifle off his shoulder and took the rifle into his hands. Vang
stated that Vang stated that Vang was approximately 100 feet away and looked back again, Vang stated
that Vang observed the subject with the rifle point the rifle at Vang. Vang stated that Vang immediately
dropped to a crouch position and the subject shot at Vang and the bullet hit the ground 30 to 40 feet
behind Vang.
Vang stated that Vang removed the scope from his rifle. Vang stated that Vang shot 2 times at the man
with the rifle and the man dropped to the ground. Vang saw all the others run towards the ATV�s and Vang
continued to shoot. Vang stated that 2 or 3 more men fell to the ground. Vang stated that a couple of the
men started to run, Vang stated that Vang chased after one of the men that ran towards the cabin. Vang
stated that the man was yelling �help me, help me�. Vang stated that Vang shot at the man several time
while chasing him. Vang stated that Vang stated that he got to about 15 to 20 feet of the man who was still
running away and Vang shot him in the back. Vang stated that the man dropped to the ground. Vang
stated that the man did not have a gun. Vang stated that Vang walked up to the man and heard the man
groan and then Vang walked a way. (This is believed to be the body of Joey Crotteau.)
Vang stated that at this point Vang heard one of the other men call on the walkie talkie and state �we�ve
been shot and need help.� Vang stated that Vang observed 3 other subjects coming on an ATV. Vang
stated that Vang then turned his reversible coat from orange to camo. Vang stated that he also reloaded
his magazine with 5 or 6 bullets. Vang stated that Vang did not shoot at these men because they had guns
with them. Vang stated that the men were in by the other injured men for less then a minute and then left.
Vang did not know if the men took any of the wounded out with them.
Vang stated that Vang then observed another ATV coming with 2 more people on it. Vang stated that the
driver of this ATV had a gun on his shoulder. Vang stated that Vang began to run and Vang stated that
they saw Vang running and were going too fast to stop and drove past Vang. Vang stated that they
stopped approximately 10 to 15 feet past Vang at a 45 degree angle. Vang stated that the man removed
the gun from his shoulder with one hand while the other hand was on the handle bars of the ATV. Vang
stated that Vang shot 3 or 4 times and both people fell off the ATV and onto the ground. (these are the
bodies of Allan Laski and Jessica Willers.)
Vang stated that Vang then started to run back towards where the original shooting started. Vang stated
that Vang looked up the trail and saw that one of the men were standing. Vang stated that Vang yelled
�you�re not dead yet?� Vang stated that Vang shot one more time in the direction of this man but doesn�t
know if he hit the man or not. Vang stated that he continued to run away and did not return. Vang stated
that at one point while running Vang decided that he did not want to shoot anybody else, so Vang threw
his remaining ammunition into a swamp.
Yang stated that approximately an hour after throwing the ammunition away Vang heard the airplane
overhead. Vang stated that Vang was thinking that they were looking for Vang so Vang was thinking about
turning himself in. Vang stated that Vang came upon a hunter with an ATV and asked the hunter for a ride
to the road. Vang stated that the hunter drove Vang to the hunter�s cabin. Vang stated that the wardens
were at the cabin waiting for him.
At the scene there was only 1 rifle located. That rifle was located near the body of Mark Roidt.
All of the victims were dressed in blaze orange clothing.
Preliminary autopsy results conducted by the forensic pathology team under the direction of Dr. McGee of
the Ramsey County, Minnesota Medical Examiner�s office are as follows:
Robert Crotteau -gun shot
Joey Crotteau -gun shot
Al Laski -gun shot
Jessica Willers -gun shot
Mark Roidt -gun shot
Dennis Drew -autopsy pending
Investigator Gary Gillis
November 23, 2004
|
| | | Posts: 1615 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 27 May 2004 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Quote:
I suspect that once a very good defense attorney (if I were defending its what I would do) gets ahold of this case he is going to ask that his client be seen by a slew of phsychiatrists and psychologists. He will be looking for at least one, and maybe more, professinals, who can, based upon their professional opinion, testify that Mr. Vang "snapped" and lost all touch with reality during this meelee, and that the client did not understand what he was doing (did not knowingly and intelligently) when he waived his right to an attorney before talking with the police. In my mind, those will be his defenses, and the jury will have to sort it all out from there, given the physical evidence preserved at the scene, and given the eyewitness testimony from those who survived.
Blue
I guess that is my problem with Defense attorneys. From my experience, I see that defense attorneys are not concerned with such things as right and wrong or justice. Their only concern is getting their client "off".
In your own words "He will be looking for at least one, and maybe more, professinals, who can, based upon their professional opinion, testify that Mr. Vang "snapped" and lost all touch with reality during this meelee,"
Even if he gets 20 doctors to examine him and 19 says that the defendant was completely sane the attorney will put the one "expert" on the stand who will give him some excuse to let his client get away with murder. I have respect for any professional from teachers, to engineers to whores and all of them have some sort of standards, but in all my years I have learned that there is nothing in the world that some attorney will not do for money or mis-guided "principles". |
| | | Posts: 12700 | Location: Kentucky, USA | Registered: 30 December 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| |
| | | Posts: 1605 | Location: Wa. State | Registered: 19 November 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Quote:
So LAWCOP, lets just say you and a cop buddy approach a person and he/she opens fire on you hitting your buddy, you chase him, he circles around and puts the killing shot in your buddy. You find him standing over your dead buddy, do you shoot an innocent man, as he hasn't been proved guilty by a court of law yet?
Go back and read the statment, this POS chased down "Unarmed" folks and shot them in the fucking back. Even if a shot was fired at him, it was fired by one person, not eight.
MY PARTNER was wounded and didn't die. THe Bad GUY ran out of ammo, threw down his gun and gave up. I didn't have to kill him.
One of the hardest things to do on the street at times is NOT shoot people who desparately need shooting. |
| | | Posts: 624 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 07 April 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Blue, What I expect is justice. No more, no less. I don't expect any attorney (prosecuting or defense) to lie or conceal real evidence from the court. I would prefer that honesty prevail in all proceedings. I don't object to anyone charging whatever the market will bear for any service that they provide but I expect them to deal with me honestly. The oath physicians take starts with "First, do no harm" for attorneys is it "first, win"? As far as the price of prositutes, visit Brazil.  Isn't it nice to deal with a disagreement without someone calling you names and getting obscene? You catch too much of that. |
| | | Posts: 12700 | Location: Kentucky, USA | Registered: 30 December 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Quote:
Quote:
I guess that is my problem with Defense attorneys. From my experience, I see that defense attorneys are not concerned with such things as right and wrong or justice. Their only concern is getting their client "off".
ONE OF The reasons I have never gone to "the dark side" is because I could never bring myself to do some of the things that are required to be a "good defense attorney"
I have seen what some of the more creative of them have done for the sake of a client and I simply could not do what they do.
I either work as a prosecutor or I don't work as an attorney at all. |
| | | Posts: 624 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 07 April 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Quote:
Blue, What I expect is justice. No more, no less. I don't expect any attorney (prosecuting or defense) to lie or conceal real evidence from the court. I would prefer that honesty prevail in all proceedings. I don't object to anyone charging whatever the market will bear for any service that they provide but I expect them to deal with me honestly.
The oath physicians take starts with "First, do no harm" for attorneys is it "first, win"?
As far as the price of prositutes, visit Brazil.
Isn't it nice to deal with a disagreement without someone calling you names and getting obscene? You catch too much of that.
FIRST, the first thing to remember, is the only people who are NOT under oath and speak at the trials, are the lawyers. Everyone else is under oath to tell the truth.
Defense attorneys are under an "oath" to not subborn perjury, but it happens.
Prosecutors are supposed to disclose all exculpatory evidence, but some of them don't.
Judges are NOT supposed to champion one side or the other during a proceeding, but some of them do to the detriment of one side or the other.
Don't ever think "justice" enters into the equation when in the courthouse. It's about winning and some of the players involved will do pretty much anything to make sure they do. It is not right and anyone who violates their oath should be at a minimum disbarred. Hopefully the investigation going on right now regarding the AUSA in Detroit will result in him going to prison. He witheld exculpatory evidence and prosecuted some men to make a Home Land Security headline. Unfortunately it doesn't happen often enough.
AS far as "expert witnesses", you will find someone who will say whatever you want once they know what you want them to say. You give them the answer and they will tell how they got to it. Not saying all are wrong, far from it, just that you will find two highly qualified well educated experts who can come up wih exactly opposing results from the exact set of circumstances.
I have always dealt with expert witnesses the same way. One of the questions I will ask them is "do you think you would be here if your evaluation was consistent with the prosecutor's theory. Whether they agree or not, they have to answer "no". ALso would ask, would you be here if you were NOT being paid? Of course they are no different then the "experts" we use from the state and federal labs. We wouldn't be calling them if they were going to harm our case, BUT, in our case we still have to release OUR results to the defense under "discovery".
THE system is a mess but it still beats everything else in the world. |
| | | Posts: 624 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 07 April 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| This was a terrible thing as we all know. I kind of think of it as a rambo movie coming to life and going worse than the movie itself. Bottom line is something very bad happened out there. It's an awful way to learn a lesson that anytime you deal with someone with a gun there is always a chance that a minor conflict can go bad...very bad...in a heartbeat. Let the authorities deal with the infraction and tread damn lightly in the meantime. |
| | | Posts: 2002 | Location: central wi | Registered: 13 September 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Blue, criminal lawyers lie by ommision. In court they withhold evidence/information all the time. It is no wonder lawyers are hated, they get people that they know without a doubt are guilty off the hook, people who they know are a grave danger to society and will kill again or otherwise re-offend. How do you justify that? Lawyers like that are no better than the scum they represent. |
| | | Posts: 372 | Location: Alberta | Registered: 13 December 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| I knew thats what you'd say, thats what every lawyer has told me when I've asked them this. Shrug their shoulders and say yup this happens, so what, we don't make up the rules. It is a failure of the system. The system needs to be changed. The lawyer /prosecutor adversorial method needs to be changed to a more flexible system where a board or panel must submit everything known about a case, a system where the omission of fact/evidence loophole by defence is not an option. Lawyers must be forceed somehow into full disclosure. |
| | | Posts: 372 | Location: Alberta | Registered: 13 December 2001 |
IP
|
|
