what evidence do you need? The guy gunned down 6 people. He knows he did it, the victims know he did it, the families know he did it, the cops know he did it, the justice system knows he did it, and the whole damn country knows he did it. Now a lawyer such as yourself is trying to get him off!
Mr. Vang is not denying shooting and killing six people. He is attempting to justify it. I haven't seen any reliable evidence which, on its face, precludes him from making such a claim. Self Defense is an EXCUSE, not a DENIAL!
Y'all continue to mischaracterize my statements. I'm not trying to get him off. I'm simply saying that he may, in fact, get off. If O.J. did, anybody can. This is an ideal opportunity for his defense attorney to make his mark on the profession, and you bet he's set to take advantage of that opportunity.
With regard to contaminated evidence, you will see that there will be some evidence that defense will successfully have suppressed. It is probably the most common criminal defense strategy, and will be no different here.
I'm just giving you an analytical look at the way Chi Vang's case will play out. If you disagree, then you disagree, that's your own prerogative.
This hang 'em high attitude sounds nice in Clint Eastwood movies, but doesn't fly here in the states. It may behoove some of you to spend a little less time chastizing me, and a little more time learning about the rights afforded to the accused. Again, quit jumping to wild conclusions.