Vang Convicted!!!

MeekAndMild · September 17, 2005, 08:18 AM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?fee...deerhunter.xml

Remember the Wisconsin poacher who was charged in the murder of six 'hunters', five of whom were unarmed and three of whom were shot in the back? Well, the jury found him guilty. Too bad Wisconsin hasn't got the death penalty.

WillBrayjr · September 17, 2005, 08:22 AM

Yup, watched the entire trial. I love how they called the Russian Saiga AK a SKS

9mmsnoopy · September 17, 2005, 08:23 AM

"Too bad Wisconsin hasn't got the death penalty."

jeffrey dahmer didnt get the death penalty either and we all remember what happened to him. this guy may be facing the same.

LotI · September 17, 2005, 09:05 AM

Dahmer was in transition using the lovely facilities in the Mendota Mental Health facility when he was ventilated. Vang was proven mentally fit to stand trial so he won't be able to visit Madison, too bad.

I'm sure there are fellow hunters using the rehabilitation facilities in my lovely state to let him know how the community feels

Wildalaska · September 17, 2005, 11:06 AM

Nice way to advocate extra juducial punishment

WildwhatagreatcountryAlaska

**4V50 Gary** · September 17, 2005, 12:36 PM

For once the trier of fact has found correctly against the accused. Still, it does nothing for the families whose lives he inflicted so much pain upon.

leadcounsel · September 17, 2005, 01:18 PM

Victims of crimes can never be made "whole," but I"m sure if you asked the families they'd prefer to have him convicted than found not guilty.

That's "something."

And, while the killer is likely insolvent, in many cases civil suits follow.

$ can't bring back the dead or heal pain, but it's also something.

Zekewolf · September 17, 2005, 04:26 PM

Folks who choose to live in states without the death penalty are getting the kind of justice that they desire. If it's o.k. with them, then that's fine with me. I'll just stay out of those states.

Marko Kloos · September 17, 2005, 05:02 PM

His claim to self-defense was a little weak, considering that five of his six victims were unarmed, four of them were shot in the back, and the last victim was shot in the back at over 100 yards while running away from Mr. Vang.

MeekAndMild · September 17, 2005, 05:55 PM

It seems that sources differ here. My first source, a National Public Radio broadcast mentioned three shot in the back. Marko mentioned four. Anyone have a more complete source reference?

Zekewolf · September 17, 2005, 08:32 PM

What possible difference could three or four in the back make? One in the back is murder.

Wildalaska · September 17, 2005, 08:46 PM

Quote:

His claim to self-defense was a little weak, considering that five of his six victims were unarmed, four of them were shot in the back, and the last victim was shot in the back at over 100 yards while running away from Mr. Vang.

Excllent analysis....!!!!

heres the deal with intentional murder charges...there are five things you can do.

1. Plead guilty and either sit on Old Sparky or get at least 20 years.
2. Try to get a better deal and plead guilty, see numbers three, and five
3. Go to trial....defense...someone else did it...if ya got somehting, see #2
4. Go to trial...defense, ya did it but were insane....use this only when you got nothing else to lose becasue unless you are a gibbering lunatic you get the results of number 1
5. Go to trial and say you were justified... (self defense)...got something you might get number 2

Here I gather that only number 1 and 5 was available....there wasnt gonna be no number 2, no matter what...accordingly he had to give it his ONLY shot (bad pun)

WildsomuchformrvanghavefunintheclinkAlaska

yorec · September 18, 2005, 12:33 AM

Heard this on the radio - gave me one of the few smiles of the day. Good ridance and may Mr. Vang never have the opportunity to "defend" himself again. He's proven he does not deserve that right and saying that tells a lot about how little I care about his welfare being I hold that right so sacred...

MeekAndMild · September 18, 2005, 12:41 AM

Well, Zeke, mostly it is because I have a deep distrust of anything I hear on NPR, especially as relates to legal matters. I had to look it up on the internet when I got home.

Garand Illusion · September 18, 2005, 12:57 AM

I was not there that day. I don't know anyone involved. I don't know what really happened. I do trust the court's decision.

But just let me play Devil's advocate ...

You're out legally hunting somewhere. A bunch of toothless local hillbillies (don't want to make them a different race to stay more PC) start screaming insults at you. One takes a shot at you with his rifle. They are moving in to kill you. All of them appear to have guns.

Being an expert shot and fired up by adrenaline you return fire. You take down the armed one who fired the shot. The others head for cover, but of course you're not going to let them get there. BIG tactical mistake. You drop most of them, the rest scatter.

You now turn and run because you're empty and you didn't come prepared for a gunfight. You know it's you against the locals (kind of like Deliverance -- in fact VERY like deliverance) so you try to get to a large town.

When you're caught, and the police hit the scene, all the rifles but one have been removed. Did those other's have rifles? Were you just paniccing? What if they had been threatening your life and were running to get rifles? They could have hunted you down in the forest.

I don't think anyone here really knows what happened. There are several scenarios that could have made this justified SD. But the case was decided months later by a jury listening to the details, and since the shooter was alone ...

Something to think about when you're facing a shoot/no shoot situation.

N.H. Yankee · September 18, 2005, 07:20 AM

A terrified person doesn't hunt down a presumably armed assailant and especially multiple assailants, period! He knew they were unarmed thats why he went after them. Vang came from the killing fields and I think that his old way of life came into play. Nobody with tactical experience would face down that many in the woods armed as it would most likely be suicide. He was enraged, also was it ever determined he actually was shot at first, the victims claim he shot first. Who would you believe? If they wanted him dead they would have picked him off in the tree stand from a safe distance before he ever knew they were there. Vang is also the prime suspect in a previous hunting/tresspassing murder and the evidence sure supports that!! Sounds like he is just a cold blooded murderer. Vang also had a F&G violation he never paid the fine for so it is a fact he has no respect for the law!

MeekAndMild · September 18, 2005, 08:27 AM

Garand Illusion the major flaw in your argument is that it would only apply on your own property or lease or less applicably on public land. It wouldn't apply in the middle of somebody else's land. Poachers are armed brigands stealing from the landowners.

rallyhound · September 18, 2005, 02:25 PM

I think there are more lessons similar to what garand was saying.
The guys who died in the woods that day would of been better served if they had tried to de- esculate the situation some.
It maybe would have been better to have simply called LEO.
Certainly it is never good to agitate a stranger with a gun.
Not that they deserved to be shot.

rmcginley · September 18, 2005, 03:11 PM

That was my first reaction when this incident occurred.

His tactical situational awareness seemed to suggest he wasn't new to this kind of "one versus many" scenario. Delayed stress syndrome maybe. Regardless, he had both the opportunity to kill and the will to kill happening at the same time. That was a powerful combination.

If the victims had had a clue as to how close this guy was to the edge they might have taken a different stance. I'm not saying the victims were some how at fault but I do think there was a strong possibility they underestimated what this guy was capable of.

Garand Illusion · September 18, 2005, 03:40 PM

I wasn't actually defending Vang, just applying so many things we talk about here.

People generally say things like "He fires a shot at me, I'm definitely shooting him down."

Since none of us were there ... suppose these guys were swearing at him and threatening the asian guy who dared violate their area. Maybe one did fire the first shot over his head (he says they fired first, the other "victims" say he fired first ... all the jury can do is listen to testimony since the bullets weren't time stamped) in that case most would say, "Oh yeah -- he's using lethal force. Shoot him down."

But if this was what happened, and Vang stopped shooting after taking down the guy with the gun, it's quite possible the results would be the SAME. Still going to prison for life, because the other's worked on their story and made sure they testified correctly as to who fired first.

So to me the point is ... always use your head as your primary weapon before you use anything else. Even if you're in the right (don't know if he was or not) you'd damned well better hesitate before returning fire on a group that large. Chances are you're right -- if the rifle shooter amongst the victims did fire first and WANTED to kill him it would have happened.

How much better everyone's life would have been if Vang and the other's BOTH would have swalled their pride and deescalated this situation.

I do believe that Vang snapped and got the sentence he deserved (since lethal injection isn't an option).

But ... it's also within the range of possibility that this is a man who chose to defend his own life with a firearm against lethal force being presented against him, and as a result is about to face life without parole in prison. No one here can disprove that, and only the people there that day actually know for sure.

Sure ... it's better to be tried by 6 than carried by 4 (is that right?) but if those six send you up the river for life without parole ... you might not have made the right choice.

We all have to choose when to shoot/when not to shoot. Sometimes you have to face the danger and err on the side of not shooting.

CarbineCaleb · September 18, 2005, 04:31 PM

Well, there doesn't seem to be much dispute that he was angrily confronted, and they were calling him names... since this has been an area with a great deal of racial tension, I don't think it's much of a stretch to accept Vang's claims that he was the subject of racial epithets, and of course he was also outnumbered, so I can imagine he was scared. Still, that doesn't give him the right to shoot all these people... As the prosecuting attorney said:

Quote:

"He was called names and that's wrong, but it's not unlawful. It did not interfere with his person," said Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, who helped prosecute the case.

Lautenschlager said: "Mr. Vang was not attacked. He was angry, and rightfully so. The defendant had no actual belief he was in imminent danger of death or bodily harm, not when he chased down all the victims."

As far as

Quote:

Vang came from the killing fields and I think that his old way of life came into play

I mean come on now - you're saying that because he comes from Laos (not Cambodia btw, where the name Killing Fields comes from), you're saying that fact makes him a murderer? If that's true, then all the Hmong here are murderers. He actually moved to the US when he was 12, and got his military experience in the California Army National Guard.

I do think this guy was guilty alright, and think justice was served, but I don't think you should say he's guilty because of his birthplace - that's a very dangerous and unfair things to say.

MeekAndMild · September 18, 2005, 08:16 PM

Its still a pretty long jump to offer self defence plea if you're a poacher.

Wildalaska · September 18, 2005, 08:43 PM

if Im poaching on your property you are not authorized to use deadly physical force against me, if you attempt to do so and I use deadly physical force to defend myself I have a viable self defense claim.

WildhornbooklawAlaska

AndrewTB · September 19, 2005, 03:18 AM

I saw some of this case on TV. First thing I thought was this....

If im walking into a gangs hood because im lost and a group of eyes surround me and starts throwin racial slurs I will be very fearful for my life. If one of them fires at me and misses I will surely as hell take my chance to survive and take as many of them out.

Im not sure about you guys but some rednecks can be pretty nasty to people of a different race. It also works the other way around but im just making a point.

The truth will never be known on this case. Im not defending him but im not defending those who were taken down. Its very possible that the men had concealed weapons too.

I feel for the families stuck in the middle of this. But I can't pass a solid opinion because none of us know enough about the case to give one.

Al Norris · September 19, 2005, 06:14 AM

Just to sort of play devil's advocate for a moment...

Let's assume parts of both stories are correct. Vang is approached at first, by 2 hunters, one of which is armed, who order him out of the stand. After berating Vang, they order him off the property.

Then, during a radio conversation between the discovering hunters and the owner of the property, who wants to talk to the poacher, the hunters go after and detain Vang. This is where it starts to get dicey, IMO. Because they had him at first and released him. Now they are detaining Vang again.

The property owner arrives, along with several others. No one but the one original hunter is armed!! Then these hunters surround Vang and offer a set of racial slurs and other invectives. According to all accounts, this borders on such hostility that Vang really feels threatened... And they release Vang, again.

The next point is that Vang says "they" shot at him. Yet even Vang admits that only one person is armed. So Vang takes him out. If this part is true, then Vang did what I think some of us might have done. For the sake of the argument, let's forget that no expended cartridges were found, indicating that the one rifleman had fired, as Vang contends. Vangs returns fire, killing the one hunter.

It is everything after this that doesn't make a lot of sense.

In one sense, it would be a tactical mistake to leave everyone there and make your escape. They could all go and arm themselves and hunt you down. So eliminate the threat altogether. You get what happens next. Dead and wounded bodies laying everywhere.

In another sense, if you are a fair woodsman, you leave and put some distance between you and those others. Tactically, once out of sight, you move 90 degrees from the anticipated direction of travel and at the first opportunity, find a likely spot and hunker down. Taking no further action unless or until it is necessary. Comes the dark, and you make your escape.

We sorta know which scenario actually happened.

The moral of the story?

Six or eight unarmed guys can confront an armed poacher and cuss the snot out of him. They are in the right.... Dead right.

When you're out in the woods, on a hunting trip, always be armed. You just never know, in todays day and age, who you'll encounter. That's the part that just amazed me.

September 17, 2005, 08:18 AM	#1
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	Vang Convicted!!! http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?fee...deerhunter.xml Remember the Wisconsin poacher who was charged in the murder of six 'hunters', five of whom were unarmed and three of whom were shot in the back? Well, the jury found him guilty. Too bad Wisconsin hasn't got the death penalty. __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

September 17, 2005, 08:23 AM	#3
9mmsnoopy Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Thrillsville ,Tx Posts: 904	"Too bad Wisconsin hasn't got the death penalty." jeffrey dahmer didnt get the death penalty either and we all remember what happened to him. this guy may be facing the same. __________________ beretta cx4 storm .40 caliber sig P290 Kahr PM9 Glock 26 Bushmaster AR15

September 17, 2005, 12:36 PM	#6
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,843	For once the trier of fact has found correctly against the accused. Still, it does nothing for the families whose lives he inflicted so much pain upon. __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

September 17, 2005, 05:02 PM	#9
Marko Kloos Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2000 Location: Enfield, NH Posts: 5,521	His claim to self-defense was a little weak, considering that five of his six victims were unarmed, four of them were shot in the back, and the last victim was shot in the back at over 100 yards while running away from Mr. Vang. __________________ "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." --A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher the munchkin wrangler.

September 17, 2005, 05:55 PM	#10
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	It seems that sources differ here. My first source, a National Public Radio broadcast mentioned three shot in the back. Marko mentioned four. Anyone have a more complete source reference? __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

September 17, 2005, 08:22 AM	#2
WillBrayjr Junior member Join Date: September 26, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 1,881	Yup, watched the entire trial. I love how they called the Russian Saiga AK a SKS

September 17, 2005, 09:05 AM	#4
LotI Member Join Date: April 19, 2005 Location: America's Dairyland Posts: 47	Dahmer was in transition using the lovely facilities in the Mendota Mental Health facility when he was ventilated. Vang was proven mentally fit to stand trial so he won't be able to visit Madison, too bad. I'm sure there are fellow hunters using the rehabilitation facilities in my lovely state to let him know how the community feels

September 17, 2005, 11:06 AM	#5
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Nice way to advocate extra juducial punishment WildwhatagreatcountryAlaska

September 17, 2005, 01:18 PM	#7
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	Victims of crimes can never be made "whole," but I"m sure if you asked the families they'd prefer to have him convicted than found not guilty. That's "something." And, while the killer is likely insolvent, in many cases civil suits follow. $ can't bring back the dead or heal pain, but it's also something.

September 17, 2005, 04:26 PM	#8
Zekewolf Senior Member Join Date: April 2, 2005 Posts: 886	Folks who choose to live in states without the death penalty are getting the kind of justice that they desire. If it's o.k. with them, then that's fine with me. I'll just stay out of those states.

September 17, 2005, 08:32 PM	#11
Zekewolf Senior Member Join Date: April 2, 2005 Posts: 886	What possible difference could three or four in the back make? One in the back is murder.

September 18, 2005, 12:33 AM	#13
yorec Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 2,328	Heard this on the radio - gave me one of the few smiles of the day. Good ridance and may Mr. Vang never have the opportunity to "defend" himself again. He's proven he does not deserve that right and saying that tells a lot about how little I care about his welfare being I hold that right so sacred... __________________ What part of "... shall not be infringed..." don't you understand?

September 18, 2005, 12:41 AM	#14
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	Well, Zeke, mostly it is because I have a deep distrust of anything I hear on NPR, especially as relates to legal matters. I had to look it up on the internet when I got home. __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

September 18, 2005, 12:57 AM	#15
Garand Illusion Senior Member Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,278	I was not there that day. I don't know anyone involved. I don't know what really happened. I do trust the court's decision. But just let me play Devil's advocate ... You're out legally hunting somewhere. A bunch of toothless local hillbillies (don't want to make them a different race to stay more PC) start screaming insults at you. One takes a shot at you with his rifle. They are moving in to kill you. All of them appear to have guns. Being an expert shot and fired up by adrenaline you return fire. You take down the armed one who fired the shot. The others head for cover, but of course you're not going to let them get there. BIG tactical mistake. You drop most of them, the rest scatter. You now turn and run because you're empty and you didn't come prepared for a gunfight. You know it's you against the locals (kind of like Deliverance -- in fact VERY like deliverance) so you try to get to a large town. When you're caught, and the police hit the scene, all the rifles but one have been removed. Did those other's have rifles? Were you just paniccing? What if they had been threatening your life and were running to get rifles? They could have hunted you down in the forest. I don't think anyone here really knows what happened. There are several scenarios that could have made this justified SD. But the case was decided months later by a jury listening to the details, and since the shooter was alone ... Something to think about when you're facing a shoot/no shoot situation.

September 18, 2005, 07:20 AM	#16
N.H. Yankee Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2004 Location: Rural N.H. Posts: 1,586	A terrified person doesn't hunt down a presumably armed assailant and especially multiple assailants, period! He knew they were unarmed thats why he went after them. Vang came from the killing fields and I think that his old way of life came into play. Nobody with tactical experience would face down that many in the woods armed as it would most likely be suicide. He was enraged, also was it ever determined he actually was shot at first, the victims claim he shot first. Who would you believe? If they wanted him dead they would have picked him off in the tree stand from a safe distance before he ever knew they were there. Vang is also the prime suspect in a previous hunting/tresspassing murder and the evidence sure supports that!! Sounds like he is just a cold blooded murderer. Vang also had a F&G violation he never paid the fine for so it is a fact he has no respect for the law! __________________ The real danger to America is not abroad but within.. Having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brains fall out! Save America, abort liberalism.

September 18, 2005, 08:27 AM	#17
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	Garand Illusion the major flaw in your argument is that it would only apply on your own property or lease or less applicably on public land. It wouldn't apply in the middle of somebody else's land. Poachers are armed brigands stealing from the landowners. __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

September 18, 2005, 02:25 PM	#18
rallyhound Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2005 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 271	I think there are more lessons similar to what garand was saying. The guys who died in the woods that day would of been better served if they had tried to de- esculate the situation some. It maybe would have been better to have simply called LEO. Certainly it is never good to agitate a stranger with a gun. Not that they deserved to be shot.

September 18, 2005, 03:11 PM	#19
rmcginley Member Join Date: June 29, 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 47	Vang came from the killing fields and I think that his old way of life came into play That was my first reaction when this incident occurred. His tactical situational awareness seemed to suggest he wasn't new to this kind of "one versus many" scenario. Delayed stress syndrome maybe. Regardless, he had both the opportunity to kill and the will to kill happening at the same time. That was a powerful combination. If the victims had had a clue as to how close this guy was to the edge they might have taken a different stance. I'm not saying the victims were some how at fault but I do think there was a strong possibility they underestimated what this guy was capable of. __________________ "To win the war you must kill the enemy." Clausewitz

September 18, 2005, 03:40 PM	#20
Garand Illusion Senior Member Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,278	I wasn't actually defending Vang, just applying so many things we talk about here. People generally say things like "He fires a shot at me, I'm definitely shooting him down." Since none of us were there ... suppose these guys were swearing at him and threatening the asian guy who dared violate their area. Maybe one did fire the first shot over his head (he says they fired first, the other "victims" say he fired first ... all the jury can do is listen to testimony since the bullets weren't time stamped) in that case most would say, "Oh yeah -- he's using lethal force. Shoot him down." But if this was what happened, and Vang stopped shooting after taking down the guy with the gun, it's quite possible the results would be the SAME. Still going to prison for life, because the other's worked on their story and made sure they testified correctly as to who fired first. So to me the point is ... always use your head as your primary weapon before you use anything else. Even if you're in the right (don't know if he was or not) you'd damned well better hesitate before returning fire on a group that large. Chances are you're right -- if the rifle shooter amongst the victims did fire first and WANTED to kill him it would have happened. How much better everyone's life would have been if Vang and the other's BOTH would have swalled their pride and deescalated this situation. I do believe that Vang snapped and got the sentence he deserved (since lethal injection isn't an option). But ... it's also within the range of possibility that this is a man who chose to defend his own life with a firearm against lethal force being presented against him, and as a result is about to face life without parole in prison. No one here can disprove that, and only the people there that day actually know for sure. Sure ... it's better to be tried by 6 than carried by 4 (is that right?) but if those six send you up the river for life without parole ... you might not have made the right choice. We all have to choose when to shoot/when not to shoot. Sometimes you have to face the danger and err on the side of not shooting.

September 18, 2005, 08:16 PM	#22
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	Its still a pretty long jump to offer self defence plea if you're a poacher. __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

September 18, 2005, 08:43 PM	#23
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	if Im poaching on your property you are not authorized to use deadly physical force against me, if you attempt to do so and I use deadly physical force to defend myself I have a viable self defense claim. WildhornbooklawAlaska

September 19, 2005, 03:18 AM	#24
AndrewTB Junior member Join Date: January 11, 2005 Posts: 677	I saw some of this case on TV. First thing I thought was this.... If im walking into a gangs hood because im lost and a group of eyes surround me and starts throwin racial slurs I will be very fearful for my life. If one of them fires at me and misses I will surely as hell take my chance to survive and take as many of them out. Im not sure about you guys but some rednecks can be pretty nasty to people of a different race. It also works the other way around but im just making a point. The truth will never be known on this case. Im not defending him but im not defending those who were taken down. Its very possible that the men had concealed weapons too. I feel for the families stuck in the middle of this. But I can't pass a solid opinion because none of us know enough about the case to give one.

September 19, 2005, 06:14 AM	#25
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Just to sort of play devil's advocate for a moment... Let's assume parts of both stories are correct. Vang is approached at first, by 2 hunters, one of which is armed, who order him out of the stand. After berating Vang, they order him off the property. Then, during a radio conversation between the discovering hunters and the owner of the property, who wants to talk to the poacher, the hunters go after and detain Vang. This is where it starts to get dicey, IMO. Because they had him at first and released him. Now they are detaining Vang again. The property owner arrives, along with several others. No one but the one original hunter is armed!! Then these hunters surround Vang and offer a set of racial slurs and other invectives. According to all accounts, this borders on such hostility that Vang really feels threatened... And they release Vang, again. The next point is that Vang says "they" shot at him. Yet even Vang admits that only one person is armed. So Vang takes him out. If this part is true, then Vang did what I think some of us might have done. For the sake of the argument, let's forget that no expended cartridges were found, indicating that the one rifleman had fired, as Vang contends. Vangs returns fire, killing the one hunter. It is everything after this that doesn't make a lot of sense. In one sense, it would be a tactical mistake to leave everyone there and make your escape. They could all go and arm themselves and hunt you down. So eliminate the threat altogether. You get what happens next. Dead and wounded bodies laying everywhere. In another sense, if you are a fair woodsman, you leave and put some distance between you and those others. Tactically, once out of sight, you move 90 degrees from the anticipated direction of travel and at the first opportunity, find a likely spot and hunker down. Taking no further action unless or until it is necessary. Comes the dark, and you make your escape. We sorta know which scenario actually happened. The moral of the story? Six or eight unarmed guys can confront an armed poacher and cuss the snot out of him. They are in the right.... Dead right. When you're out in the woods, on a hunting trip, always be armed. You just never know, in todays day and age, who you'll encounter. That's the part that just amazed me.