PDA

View Full Version : Re: Minneapolis police said they arrested Vang on Christmas Eve 2001......


John Hanson
November 24th 04, 01:58 PM
On 23 Nov 2004 20:05:01 -0800, (ntxubhmoob) wrote
in soc.culture.hmong:

>**This incident could send a message to property owners not to be so
>proud of themselves because owning a piece of land does not guarantee
>they can take with them to hell.

That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hmong regarding property
rights...and American law in general.

November 24th 04, 06:57 PM
John Hanson > wrote in message >...
> On 23 Nov 2004 20:05:01 -0800, (ntxubhmoob) wrote
> in soc.culture.hmong:
>
> >**This incident could send a message to property owners not to be so
> >proud of themselves because owning a piece of land does not guarantee
> >they can take with them to hell.
>
> That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hmong regarding property
> rights...and American law in general.

You guys are right, the land in this country belong to GOVERNMENT
(GOVERNMENT = EVERYONE).

The lesson to the land owner is that do not enforce too much po person
right, because that right may cause your life, that is what exactly
happened to those six victums. On the otherhand, intruder should know
that the law prohibited entering to other land, why still do? I do
not believe that the suspect got lost, he purpose went in for his own
sake. The problems was the land owner just over smart of handling the
situations.

Now the lessons should be learn for both sides.

Let not judge for them (both suspect and victum), let the justic
systems solves and judge the case. I know that justic will be serve
for both ends.

I do not want to se another: RODNEY KING CASE IN MN.

Good luck.

God bless everyone

Txawj UA

Good Luck

Will Brink
November 24th 04, 09:04 PM
In article >,
wrote:

> John Hanson > wrote in message
> >...
> > On 23 Nov 2004 20:05:01 -0800, (ntxubhmoob) wrote
> > in soc.culture.hmong:
> >
> > >**This incident could send a message to property owners not to be so
> > >proud of themselves because owning a piece of land does not guarantee
> > >they can take with them to hell.
> >
> > That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hmong regarding property
> > rights...and American law in general.
>
> You guys are right, the land in this country belong to GOVERNMENT
> (GOVERNMENT = EVERYONE).
>
> The lesson to the land owner is

Carry a bigger gun!

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Seth Breidbart
November 25th 04, 12:52 AM
In article >,
> wrote:
>John Hanson > wrote in message >...
>> On 23 Nov 2004 20:05:01 -0800, (ntxubhmoob) wrote
>> in soc.culture.hmong:
>>
>> >**This incident could send a message to property owners not to be so
>> >proud of themselves because owning a piece of land does not guarantee
>> >they can take with them to hell.
>>
>> That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hmong regarding property
>> rights...and American law in general.
>
>You guys are right, the land in this country belong to GOVERNMENT
>(GOVERNMENT = EVERYONE).

No, quite a bit of it belongs to individual people, companies,
partnerships, etc.

>The lesson to the land owner is that

if the trespasser is a Hmong, be prepared to shoot first, because they
don't believe you have any special rights to your own property.

Seth
--
chown -R us /yourbase

Pete
November 25th 04, 06:32 AM
John Hanson wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2004 20:05:01 -0800, (ntxubhmoob) wrote
> in soc.culture.hmong:
>
>> **This incident could send a message to property owners not to be so
>> proud of themselves because owning a piece of land does not guarantee
>> they can take with them to hell.
>
> That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hmong regarding property
> rights...and American law in general.

Vang pretty much opened season on the Hmong in Minnesota. Whaddya think the
chances are a jury would convict for shooting an armed, trespassing Hmong
after this incident?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

John Hanson
November 25th 04, 04:08 PM
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:32:11 -0800, "Pete" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2004 20:05:01 -0800, (ntxubhmoob) wrote
>> in soc.culture.hmong:
>>
>>> **This incident could send a message to property owners not to be so
>>> proud of themselves because owning a piece of land does not guarantee
>>> they can take with them to hell.
>>
>> That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hmong regarding property
>> rights...and American law in general.
>
>Vang pretty much opened season on the Hmong in Minnesota. Whaddya think the
>chances are a jury would convict for shooting an armed, trespassing Hmong
>after this incident?
>
Turns out that Vang has 40 acres in Minnesota and has had problems
with trespassing on his neighbor's adjacent land. He continually
built tree stands on his neighbors land and they would tear them down
only to have him rebuild them. What a ****ing loser.

John Hanson
November 25th 04, 05:42 PM
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:38:42 -0600, "Maria Gomez"
> wrote in
soc.culture.hmong:

>Once again the Hmong concept of property ownership: It doesn't mean a thing
>to them. Let's see, free transport to the USA, welfare, public schooling,
>and wonderful community gathering places for them to practice their culture:
>Mystic Lake and Treasure Island.
>
>The culture of hillbilly garbage. Sorry, but it is so true.

Hehe. Hey Maria, I graduated from high school with a Maria Gomez.
I'm sure you aren't her though.
>
>"ntxubhmoob" > wrote in message
om...
>> **This incident could send a message to property owners not to be so
>> proud of themselves because owning a piece of land does not guarantee
>> they can take with them to hell.
>
>
>
>
>
>.................................................. ..............
> Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
> >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
>-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

John Hanson
November 25th 04, 05:45 PM
On 24 Nov 2004 10:57:05 -0800, wrote in
soc.culture.hmong:

>John Hanson > wrote in message >...
>> On 23 Nov 2004 20:05:01 -0800, (ntxubhmoob) wrote
>> in soc.culture.hmong:
>>
>> >**This incident could send a message to property owners not to be so
>> >proud of themselves because owning a piece of land does not guarantee
>> >they can take with them to hell.
>>
>> That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hmong regarding property
>> rights...and American law in general.
>
>You guys are right, the land in this country belong to GOVERNMENT
>(GOVERNMENT = EVERYONE).

No it doesn't you stupid ****.

>
>The lesson to the land owner is that do not enforce too much po person
>right, because that right may cause your life, that is what exactly
>happened to those six victums. On the otherhand, intruder should know
>that the law prohibited entering to other land, why still do? I do
>not believe that the suspect got lost, he purpose went in for his own
>sake. The problems was the land owner just over smart of handling the
>situations.

The problem is that you can't trust the Hmong.

>
>Now the lessons should be learn for both sides.
>
>Let not judge for them (both suspect and victum), let the justic
>systems solves and judge the case. I know that justic will be serve
>for both ends.

Vang is going to get beaten and butt****ed on a daily basis in prison.

>
>I do not want to se another: RODNEY KING CASE IN MN.
>
>Good luck.
>
>God bless everyone
>
>Txawj UA
>
>Good Luck

Blow me.

zZZzzz
November 26th 04, 01:58 AM
Just shut the hell up you piece of trash, John Hanson. It's stenchy
racists like you that Vang most probably run across everyday which
caused him to do what he did. You don't even know all the details of
the matter yet and you're already blaming it all on him. Why don't you
just wait to see everything on the table first? Don't make a babboon
out of yourself. Yeah, yeah, I know you're going to call me gook and
whatever else already, so blow me too.

John Hanson > wrote in message >...
> On 24 Nov 2004 10:57:05 -0800, wrote in
> soc.culture.hmong:
>
> >John Hanson > wrote in message >...
> >> On 23 Nov 2004 20:05:01 -0800, (ntxubhmoob) wrote
> >> in soc.culture.hmong:
> >>
> >> >**This incident could send a message to property owners not to be so
> >> >proud of themselves because owning a piece of land does not guarantee
> >> >they can take with them to hell.
> >>
> >> That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hmong regarding property
> >> rights...and American law in general.
> >
> >You guys are right, the land in this country belong to GOVERNMENT
> >(GOVERNMENT = EVERYONE).
>
> No it doesn't you stupid ****.
>
> >
> >The lesson to the land owner is that do not enforce too much po person
> >right, because that right may cause your life, that is what exactly
> >happened to those six victums. On the otherhand, intruder should know
> >that the law prohibited entering to other land, why still do? I do
> >not believe that the suspect got lost, he purpose went in for his own
> >sake. The problems was the land owner just over smart of handling the
> >situations.
>
> The problem is that you can't trust the Hmong.
>
> >
> >Now the lessons should be learn for both sides.
> >
> >Let not judge for them (both suspect and victum), let the justic
> >systems solves and judge the case. I know that justic will be serve
> >for both ends.
>
> Vang is going to get beaten and butt****ed on a daily basis in prison.
>
> >
> >I do not want to se another: RODNEY KING CASE IN MN.
> >
> >Good luck.
> >
> >God bless everyone
> >
> >Txawj UA
> >
> >Good Luck
>
> Blow me.

John Hanson
November 26th 04, 02:07 AM
On 25 Nov 2004 17:58:18 -0800, (zZZzzz)
wrote in soc.culture.hmong:

>Just shut the hell up you piece of trash, John Hanson. It's stenchy
>racists like you that Vang most probably run across everyday which
>caused him to do what he did. You don't even know all the details of
>the matter yet and you're already blaming it all on him. Why don't you
>just wait to see everything on the table first? Don't make a babboon
>out of yourself. Yeah, yeah, I know you're going to call me gook and
>whatever else already, so blow me too.

Hey ****forbrains, he murdered 6 people, attempted to murder 2 more as
well as trespassed on private property. He, by his own admission,
hunted people down and killed them. He is the lowest form of human
life. The fact of the matter is that he will go to prison where he
will be beaten and butt****ed on a daily basis until he dies.

>
>John Hanson > wrote in message >...
>> On 24 Nov 2004 10:57:05 -0800, wrote in
>> soc.culture.hmong:
>>
>> >John Hanson > wrote in message >...
>> >> On 23 Nov 2004 20:05:01 -0800, (ntxubhmoob) wrote
>> >> in soc.culture.hmong:
>> >>
>> >> >**This incident could send a message to property owners not to be so
>> >> >proud of themselves because owning a piece of land does not guarantee
>> >> >they can take with them to hell.
>> >>
>> >> That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hmong regarding property
>> >> rights...and American law in general.
>> >
>> >You guys are right, the land in this country belong to GOVERNMENT
>> >(GOVERNMENT = EVERYONE).
>>
>> No it doesn't you stupid ****.
>>
>> >
>> >The lesson to the land owner is that do not enforce too much po person
>> >right, because that right may cause your life, that is what exactly
>> >happened to those six victums. On the otherhand, intruder should know
>> >that the law prohibited entering to other land, why still do? I do
>> >not believe that the suspect got lost, he purpose went in for his own
>> >sake. The problems was the land owner just over smart of handling the
>> >situations.
>>
>> The problem is that you can't trust the Hmong.
>>
>> >
>> >Now the lessons should be learn for both sides.
>> >
>> >Let not judge for them (both suspect and victum), let the justic
>> >systems solves and judge the case. I know that justic will be serve
>> >for both ends.
>>
>> Vang is going to get beaten and butt****ed on a daily basis in prison.
>>
>> >
>> >I do not want to se another: RODNEY KING CASE IN MN.
>> >
>> >Good luck.
>> >
>> >God bless everyone
>> >
>> >Txawj UA
>> >
>> >Good Luck
>>
>> Blow me.

zZZzzz
November 27th 04, 01:14 AM
John Hanson > wrote in message >...
> On 25 Nov 2004 17:58:18 -0800, (zZZzzz)
> wrote in soc.culture.hmong:

> Hey ****forbrains, he murdered 6 people, attempted to murder 2 more as
> well as trespassed on private property. He, by his own admission,
> hunted people down and killed them. He is the lowest form of human
> life. The fact of the matter is that he will go to prison where he
> will be beaten and butt****ed on a daily basis until he dies.

You calling me "****forbrains"... HAHAHA x 3hrs... and then Puahaha.

He said he shot them 'cause the white hunter fired at him first. And
yes he said he chased them and shot them, but the circumstances behind
his actions have not been verified yet. If he did so just because he
felt so then he'll be guilty. But if he did so because he feared for
his life due to the reason that they were going to get firearms and
reinforcements (which later came) then that's different. Or maybe
initially they weren't even running for their lives. Maybe they
actually attempted to attack him, but he pinged several of them off so
then the rest scattered, and that's when he followed suit. If that's
the case then his sentence would be milder, if he's even convicted at
all. Perhaps your perverted hopes of seeing him butt****ed everyday
might evaporate like a fart in the wind then.

Furthermore shooting somebody in the back isn't that bad per se. At
first glance it looks cowardly. But what if the combatant, "unarmed"
and women or not, was just running away to get better cover so that
s/he can come back or sneak around to fight you? Given the opportunity
anybody, especially you John Hanson, would eliminate such a threat. 8
against 1 is a menacing odd. Someone, "unarmed" or not, could have
gone behind Vang's blind spot, punch him, and then take his gun away.
What is he going to do then? Without his gun against 8 hostile people
he'd get pummelled to death. Yeah, the women are even bigger than him
I believe. And obviously those 8 people, who are all friends, could
easily conjure up a story saying they defended themselves against a
crazy slant-eyed gook who purposely trespassed on their property and
threatened them. Nobody would know any better. Vang's not going to
tell. He's dead already.

Best thing is to just wait unitl this story unfolds itself. Let all
the facts come out then go from there. And at the end if it turns out
that he was just defending himself against several white racists then
you will also have to accept the verdict. If you don't then that's
your problem... go join the Browns in Michigan or something.

John Hanson
November 27th 04, 01:43 AM
On 26 Nov 2004 17:14:30 -0800, (zZZzzz)
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson > wrote in message >...
>> On 25 Nov 2004 17:58:18 -0800, (zZZzzz)
>> wrote in soc.culture.hmong:
>
>> Hey ****forbrains, he murdered 6 people, attempted to murder 2 more as
>> well as trespassed on private property. He, by his own admission,
>> hunted people down and killed them. He is the lowest form of human
>> life. The fact of the matter is that he will go to prison where he
>> will be beaten and butt****ed on a daily basis until he dies.
>
>You calling me "****forbrains"... HAHAHA x 3hrs... and then Puahaha.
>
>He said he shot them 'cause the white hunter fired at him first. And
>yes he said he chased them and shot them, but the circumstances behind
>his actions have not been verified yet. If he did so just because he
>felt so then he'll be guilty. But if he did so because he feared for
>his life due to the reason that they were going to get firearms and
>reinforcements (which later came) then that's different. Or maybe
>initially they weren't even running for their lives. Maybe they
>actually attempted to attack him, but he pinged several of them off so
>then the rest scattered, and that's when he followed suit. If that's
>the case then his sentence would be milder, if he's even convicted at
>all. Perhaps your perverted hopes of seeing him butt****ed everyday
>might evaporate like a fart in the wind then.

No, dumb****. He had a duty to retreat. Why don't you spend some
time learning American law. He will be sentenced to 6 life terms and
then some.

>
>Furthermore shooting somebody in the back isn't that bad per se. At
>first glance it looks cowardly. But what if the combatant, "unarmed"
>and women or not, was just running away to get better cover so that
>s/he can come back or sneak around to fight you? Given the opportunity
>anybody, especially you John Hanson, would eliminate such a threat. 8
>against 1 is a menacing odd. Someone, "unarmed" or not, could have
>gone behind Vang's blind spot, punch him, and then take his gun away.
>What is he going to do then? Without his gun against 8 hostile people
>he'd get pummelled to death. Yeah, the women are even bigger than him
>I believe. And obviously those 8 people, who are all friends, could
>easily conjure up a story saying they defended themselves against a
>crazy slant-eyed gook who purposely trespassed on their property and
>threatened them. Nobody would know any better. Vang's not going to
>tell. He's dead already.

You don't know the law apparently. Wisconsin statute 939.48(1)
states:
"A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against
another for the purpose of preventing or terminating
what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful
interference with his or her person by such other person.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat
thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to
prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not
intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably
believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent
death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

Notice the words "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm".
Vang clearly can't use your scenario as a defense.
>
>Best thing is to just wait unitl this story unfolds itself. Let all
>the facts come out then go from there. And at the end if it turns out
>that he was just defending himself against several white racists then
>you will also have to accept the verdict. If you don't then that's
>your problem... go join the Browns in Michigan or something.

Go learn the laws of this country.

Jason Burnell
November 27th 04, 03:40 AM
On 26 Nov 2004 17:14:30 -0800, (zZZzzz)
wrote:

>John Hanson > wrote in message >...
>> On 25 Nov 2004 17:58:18 -0800, (zZZzzz)
>> wrote in soc.culture.hmong:
>
>> Hey ****forbrains, he murdered 6 people, attempted to murder 2 more as
>> well as trespassed on private property. He, by his own admission,
>> hunted people down and killed them. He is the lowest form of human
>> life. The fact of the matter is that he will go to prison where he
>> will be beaten and butt****ed on a daily basis until he dies.
>
>You calling me "****forbrains"... HAHAHA x 3hrs... and then Puahaha.
>
>He said he shot them 'cause the white hunter fired at him first. And
>yes he said he chased them and shot them, but the circumstances behind
>his actions have not been verified yet. If he did so just because he
>felt so then he'll be guilty. But if he did so because he feared for
>his life due to the reason that they were going to get firearms and
>reinforcements (which later came) then that's different.

IF he'd have stayed off their land he'd have no reason to have been in
fear for his life.
> Or maybe
>initially they weren't even running for their lives. Maybe they
>actually attempted to attack him,

for trespassing?

>but he pinged several of them off so
>then the rest scattered, and that's when he followed suit. If that's
>the case then his sentence would be milder, if he's even convicted at
>all. Perhaps your perverted hopes of seeing him butt****ed everyday
>might evaporate like a fart in the wind then.

How can one person be so wrong?
>
>Furthermore shooting somebody in the back isn't that bad per se. At
>first glance it looks cowardly.

UH... yeah..


>But what if the combatant, "unarmed"
>and women or not, was just running away to get better cover so that
>s/he can come back or sneak around to fight you? Given the opportunity
>anybody, especially you John Hanson, would eliminate such a threat. 8
>against 1 is a menacing odd.

Especially when the 1 is at fault and started out by shooting one of
the 8.


> Someone, "unarmed" or not, could have
>gone behind Vang's blind spot, punch him, and then take his gun away.
>What is he going to do then? Without his gun against 8 hostile people
>he'd get pummelled to death. Yeah, the women are even bigger than him
>I believe.

How sad.

> And obviously those 8 people, who are all friends, could
>easily conjure up a story saying they defended themselves against a
>crazy slant-eyed gook who purposely trespassed on their property and
>threatened them.

Well, lets see. How many people did he shoot and where did he shoot
them? Hmm.. sounds like a crazy ******* to me.

> Nobody would know any better. Vang's not going to
>tell. He's dead already.

Poor guy. He must be the victim. You've convinced me.


>
>Best thing is to just wait unitl this story unfolds itself. Let all
>the facts come out then go from there. And at the end if it turns out
>that he was just defending himself against several white racists then
>you will also have to accept the verdict.


Ok..he was defending himself against some white racists... but the
whole thing started with him going onto their land with a firearm?
WFT?

Following that logic, the best way to defend ones self against the
Klan would be to walk towards a burning cross at midnight in Georgia
wearing a" I Hate Whitey" shirt, yelling "Where the white women" and
waving a Mac10t.

> If you don't then that's
>your problem... go join the Browns in Michigan or something.

What if he was just a crazy ******* and killed some people?

Jason Burnell
http://www.deepsquatter.com

John M. Williams
November 27th 04, 07:16 AM
(zZZzzz) wrote:
>
>Best thing is to just wait unitl this story unfolds itself. Let all
>the facts come out then go from there. And at the end if it turns out
>that he was just defending himself against several white racists then
>you will also have to accept the verdict.

And if he killed them all in anger, what then?

Unfortunately, the death penalty will not be an option.

zZZzzz
November 27th 04, 03:35 PM
John Hanson > wrote in message >...
> On 26 Nov 2004 17:14:30 -0800, (zZZzzz)
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >John Hanson > wrote in message >...
> >> On 25 Nov 2004 17:58:18 -0800, (zZZzzz)
> >> wrote in soc.culture.hmong:

> No, dumb****. He had a duty to retreat. Why don't you spend some
> time learning American law. He will be sentenced to 6 life terms and
> then some.

Retreat to where? Take nother step or two in the opposite direction
and get a bullet to the back? Maybe he truly feared for his life so
took actions to prevent it from happenning. This was a split second
decision. The white hunter shouldn't have raised his gun and shot at
Vang in the first place since he was leaving already. That's a crime
in itself, is it not? Attempted murder?... Vang's first duty is to
defend himself.

> You don't know the law apparently. Wisconsin statute 939.48(1)
> states:
> "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against
> another for the purpose of preventing or terminating
> what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful
> interference with his or her person by such other person.
> The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat
> thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to
> prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not
> intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or
> great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably
> believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent
> death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

That's what Vang did; terminating what the person reasonably believes
to be an unlawful interference... by such other person (white hunter
who shot at him first). This scenerio is as likely as any other.

I'm not saying that ultimately Vang is innocent. He may very well be
found guilty by a (hopefully fair) judge or jury. We'll find out in
due time. But the racist tirades and undertones that you, your
girlfriend Maria Gomez, as well as your local pub buddies are throwing
around are just ridiculous.

> Notice the words "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm".
> Vang clearly can't use your scenario as a defense.

> Go learn the laws of this country.

Come on dude, learning law 101 or from your highschool textbook
doesn't make you more vesred than me in criminal law. Hello?
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Is that not part of
American laws? Or are you stupid? I admit I'm no expert, but one
thing's for sure is that you're no more knowledgable than me. Funny
hearing a babboon trying to interpret the law for the rest of us when
he doesn't even know the ins and outs of criminal law, not to mention
all the facts concerning this case... Wy don't you protest to be the
state prosecutor for this trial? I'm pretty certain you would win the
case! *snicker* LOL.

Will Brink
November 27th 04, 08:04 PM
In article >,
(zZZzzz) wrote:

> John Hanson > wrote in message
> >...
> > On 26 Nov 2004 17:14:30 -0800, (zZZzzz)
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >
> > >John Hanson > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> On 25 Nov 2004 17:58:18 -0800, (zZZzzz)
> > >> wrote in soc.culture.hmong:
>
> > No, dumb****. He had a duty to retreat. Why don't you spend some
> > time learning American law. He will be sentenced to 6 life terms and
> > then some.
>
> Retreat to where? Take nother step or two in the opposite direction
> and get a bullet to the back? Maybe he truly feared for his life so
> took actions to prevent it from happenning.

That will probably be his defense, and no jury will buy it.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/