CalNewbie - you are clearly jaded by your own political views and distaste for an opposing viewpoint.
Blame the victim. A common liberal tactic
As investigation often reveals that the victim DID shoot first, provoke, attack, etc. Not a common liberal tactic, pal... a common DEFENSE tactic.
And of course Robert Owens is the only possible authority on the subject
No, Owens is NOT the only authority on the subject. He cites over 60 resources, each of which cite hundreds more. I was merely offering an example of an expert opinion on the topic, a starting point for a would-be researcher. If you're gonna argue that crime scenes are never compromised by investigators, victims and interlopers, you'd better eat your Wheaties.
Here we have a tool of a weak mind. "We will never know the real truth".
Here we have a tool of a weak mind. There is no video, there is no audio tape, there are only eyewitness accounts. That eyewitness testimony will be biased on both sides, and truthfulness will be an issue. We WILL NEVER KNOW THE REAL TRUTH, contrary to what you may believe.
While I think the self-defense theory is b.s., you can certainly investigate it logically. If the hunting party had fired into the ground at his feet there will be physical evidence. Presumably the person to shoot at Chai Vang was the first to be shot. The rifle would be on the ground, an empty cartridge in the chamber or a casing on the ground. A bullet might be found in the dirt (might be hard to find even if it was there).
That's been my point all along. Evidence may be presented at trial of the presence of the aforesaid items. Further, evidence may reveal that those items were removed, repositioned or otherwise tampered with. Evidently you were there, so you know exactly what happened. The rest of us are doomed to wonder how the events actually unfolded... Please enlighten us.