onebullet

to all --see the link on chi vang and the offical charges he is faced with -- the actual charges and vangs own testimony-- read and use to become informed[:-][&o]
[]

BowHuntingFool

Hey onebullet I wasn't directing anything towards your post. I just thought the A$$ whoppin posts were going to get it locked! I find it interesting as well as unbelievable. No disrespect.

pocomoke

Sory about the can o whoop a** post.This quiksilver person was just really jerkin my chain.This guy will probably send the murderer of those hunters some money to put in his prison account.He has really tried to get us to believe this killer might be innocent.PLEASE!!

metalback

That low life piece of scum should have his arms and legs amputated, making sure he doesn't bleed to death, and put on cable TV where the whole world could tune in daily to watch him rot in a basket!!!!!!! PERIOD......If he gets off with anything other than a death sentence----our legal system has proven again that the thugs, thieves, murderers, rapists, ect----have far more rights than an honest citizen does......WE NEED TO START ENFORCING " OLD TIME JUSTICE"!!!!!!!! Maybe then some of these folks that take advantage of our easy justice sysyem will think twice before they go about their crime!!!!! !Pisses me off to no ends!!!!!!

timbercruiser

Metalback I think Wisconsin is one of those states that does not use the death penalty. A shank in the hallway is probably the only thing as far as a death penalty that Wisconsin will have. Trouble is the prisons are full of people like him.
Woody I think old Silver is the type of lawyer that would sue the victims families for the price of his shells.

doughboysigep

I'm not saying I agree with these stupid lawsuits or the stupid people that bring them or the stupid people that award the cases, but to say that it is a liberal "conspiracy" is a bit ridiculous. I can't tell you "why" the lawsuits are successful. I think it is a lack of common sense that many posess, both conservative and liberal.

doughboysigep

now you are starting to go a bit overboard. if, in fact, one hunter did shoot at him, he may have had some justicication to shoot back. But, once that "threat" was gone (wounded), he had no justification for shooting the others. that is a plain and simple fact (you aught to know, you're the lawyer). you are beating a dead horse. yes he has a right to a fair trail and to be defended with "all the zealous under the law" (or what ever they say on Law & Order). but, to think for a minute that there is a big conspiracy of the victims to "cover up" this incident and make it seem something that is is not, is, again, riduculous. the "fact" is he had more than ample opportunity to flee danger and not kill the other bystanders. you are the lawyer, how does the self defense law read? - that is something you have failed to mention.

onebullet

none offense taken if you look way back i asked for it to be locked but there must be something of value to someone here possibly the truth???

onebullet

i felt the same way -you just had the balls to say it( oh cr_p i hope your not a girl)


i know metalback-what is to deter them from committing a crime?

not defending him doughboy but he did mention it very early in his posts--or attempted to qoute something he learned at school he didnt learn from this i am sure[:@]

Unclebuck 300

Been watching this discussion since it began and have several comments...

First, my belief is that he is guilty of the charges and that he did in fact murder these six people in cold blood. His stories, as published, have changed several times and none of them are justification for what he did.

He is NOT entitled to use the self defense claim after he had shot four people and the other two come riding up on an ATV with a rifle and attempt to defend their friends. He murdered them as well, no self defense what so ever.

He is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty under the rights of our country. I am glad I'm not on the jury because there is no way in hell I could provide this person with that presumption of innocence.

Insantity Defense. This in my opinion as well can be thrown out the window, because an insane person would not take the time to better camoflauge himself, turn his jacket inside out etc. It was a consious act of trying to get away and protect himself. While the insanity defense is not saying he is not-guilty and only means he gets to go to a hospital instead of a prison it has many drawbacks. Look at Hinkley. Shoots the President and he is out on supervised visits. I want the guy in jail / dead, not out enjoying the holidays with his family.


I guess what it all comes down to, is it is an emotion based issue that very much should be, but the facts and reality are what should convict him and dispense the justice and as far as I can see, the facts justify a guilty conviction and jail/death.

UB