Hate crime that wasn't called one.

Baldimo, I wonder if you have actually thought through this idea of yours that Vang was "hunting whitey".

Because if indeed Vang grabbed a rifle and went looking for white people, as you seem to think, wouldn't the forest be a strange place to start? People don't live in forests. They live in villages, towns and cities. Even during hunting season, Vang could go for days and days and not come across another person. And the people he did come across would likely have a rifle with them, which would complicate matters immensely.

If he wanted to "hunt whitey", it seems to me that he would go to some industrial part of town at night, wait for some individual to come down the street, and let him have it. He could be three blocks away before anyone has the time to call the cops, if they do.

What seems most obvious here is that Vang went hunting for game, wandered onto private wooded land, and was told to leave by the owner and friends in impolite terms which might have included racist remarks. This enraged him, and he started blasting.

That scenario is about ten thousand times more likely than Vang grabbing a rifle and walking through the woods looking to chance upon someone he can shoot.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Baldimo, I wonder if you have actually thought through this idea of yours that Vang was "hunting whitey".

Because if indeed Vang grabbed a rifle and went looking for white people, as you seem to think, wouldn't the forest be a strange place to start? People don't live in forests. They live in villages, towns and cities. Even during hunting season, Vang could go for days and days and not come across another person. And the people he did come across would likely have a rifle with them, which would complicate matters immensely.

If he wanted to "hunt whitey", it seems to me that he would go to some industrial part of town at night, wait for some individual to come down the street, and let him have it. He could be three blocks away before anyone has the time to call the cops, if they do.

What seems most obvious here is that Vang went hunting for game, wandered onto private wooded land, and was told to leave by the owner and friends in impolite terms which might have included racist remarks. This enraged him, and he started blasting.

That scenario is about ten thousand times more likely than Vang grabbing a rifle and walking through the woods looking to chance upon someone he can shoot.

THe hunting whitey was more of an example and a funny commit then any thing else. You have to wonder though why did he fell the need to shoot that many people? It seems to me that he had more in mind then hunting deer if he shot that many people. The SKS rifle he was using has a built in 5 round mag and you can purchase a 10 round clip for it. This article claims that he fired about 20 rounds. If he only had a 5 round mag that means he had to reload at least 4 times. If he had a 10 round mag that means he had to reload once and still in the process shoot 8 people.

The first person he shot was the only one with a rifle after that it was easy picking. He was reported to have removed his scope and dropped into a crouch and started firing and the farthest person away was shot at about 500 yards. Having only shot 8 people and shooting about 20 times means he shot at each person more then once. This was more then fear from this guy this was pure hatred. The press didn't call this what it was a hate crime!

0 Replies

If these facts are true, I'm afraid that Baldimo may have a valid point. There was obviously something going on here. But, will we ever really know what?

0 Replies

Anybody that carries a gun and kills eight people for whatever reason in not innocent of a crime. It doesn't matter if the gunner was white, black, red or yellow.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Anybody that carries a gun and kills eight people for whatever reason in not innocent of a crime. It doesn't matter if the gunner was white, black, red or yellow.

That's where you are wrong. If this were a white guy who had shot 8 black people the first thing the news and the police would have done is brand this as a hate crime. It didn't happen in this case even though the severity of the crime should have pointed that way.

0 Replies

Although I am not as convinced as Baldimo that this actually WAS a hate crime. I do have to agree that if it were a white person that had murdered 6 black people it would be publicized as a definite hate crime. I don't understand why this has to be. We will ever get to the point to where we stop using race in so many arguments/debates? Isn't what matters is that we are all human beings and all deserving of the same dignities and respect?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

How do we not know he had issues with white people?

It doesn't matter. It's a wholly irrelevant question to your notion of this having been a clear "hate crime" and not having had been labelled as such.

Upon having the criteria for hate crime pointed out to you and how this case did not contain evidence of said criteria, you now speculate if there is some unknown infomation out there that would help this case qualify as what you want it to be.

I can't speak for the unknown evidence out there that you imagine, but I can say that you seem to want it to be that way, whether or not it is.

Even if that is so, you have to be able to acknowledge that the legal system shouldn't try cases based on evidence Baldimo wants to exist and it should be of no surprise to you that they did not call this a "hate crime", even if it is a disappointment.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

You have to wonder though why did he fell the need to shoot that many people? It seems to me that he had more in mind then hunting deer if he shot that many people.

That many people were insulting him, possibly racially. Why do you find it hard to believe that a guy who has "gone off" in anger would shoot everybody involved?

Baldimo wrote:

If he only had a 5 round mag that means he had to reload at least 4 times. If he had a 10 round mag that means he had to reload once and still in the process shoot 8 people.

Bernhard Goetz reloaded during his moment on the New York City subway. Do you think that means he purposely entered the subway car intending to prove black people?

Baldimo wrote:

The first person he shot was the only one with a rifle

This surprises you how?

Baldimo wrote:

The press didn't call this what it was a hate crime!

Your points do not necessarily point to that. They mostly point to what this obviously was: a hunter who wandered onto private woods, climbed up on a deer stand, was rudely told to get off the tree stand, and went off.

There is no evidence this was a hate crime.

0 Replies

It amazes me that you are will to accept that some white people MIGHT have called this guy some names but don't even warm to the fact that this guy shot 7 unarmed white people for no reason.

There were other reasons for this and no one even looked into the possibility because this guy wasn't white and apparently only white people can be racist.

As I said before if this were a white guy who shot 8 black people it would have been the first thing of the presses and polices mouth. He was a racist.

0 Replies

Baldimo, You would be one jury member out of 12 that would decide this as a hate crime. The others will look at all the evidence provided in court, and assume nothing at the beginning - as you do - and decide the case on its merits.

0 Replies

C'mon guys. Can't you at least see where Baldimo might have some questions here?

Surely there was more going on with Mr. Vang than just being run off some property and dodging racial slurs and that in itself was what caused him to lose it the way he did. I don't know that it was a hate crime, but I am certainly willing to admit that it sure might have had something to do with it.

I mean c'mon, the guy tried to kill 8 people and succeeded in killing six. And it's only because he was being run off some property and being called racial names? If that's the case in its entirety, I'd say a defense of insanity would have been more the way to go.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

It amazes me that you are will to accept that some white people MIGHT have called this guy some names but don't even warm to the fact that this guy shot 7 unarmed white people for no reason.

Huh? I think what people here are not "warming" to is the notion that this case is indicative of some social injustice against whites for not having been classified as a "hate crime".

Quote:

There were other reasons for this and no one even looked into the possibility because this guy wasn't white and apparently only white people can be racist.

I think you are the only one here saying this, and it's a bit rude to keep projecting this position onto others here who simply do not hold this opinion at all.

Quote:

As I said before if this were a white guy who shot 8 black people it would have been the first thing of the presses and polices mouth. He was a racist.

This may or may not be true. And if true, it may or may not have anything to do with discrepancy with which races are seen as racist.

For example, the statistical odds in America of 8 black people being shot are different than 8 white people shot. This is merely due to the number of white people vs the number of black people.

With a statistical anomoly like that people may well be inclined to look for a reason and may well bark up the race tree.

Thing is, none of this really does anything to further your notion that this is a hate crime and that it is social injustice against whites that it was not tried as such.

It simply wasn't and you continue to bark up the race tree for what may not have had anything to do with race until the defendant played the race card (sorta).

Momma Angel wrote:

C'mon guys. Can't you at least see where Baldimo might have some questions here?

Sure. What I don't see is where they make sense or how they lead to the notion that this was:

a) a "hate crime"
b) social injustice to whites for not being classified as such

Quote:

Surely there was more going on with Mr. Vang than just being run off some property and dodging racial slurs and that in itself was what caused him to lose it the way he did.

Maybe, maybe not. It wouldn't be the first time a criminal has done something that doesn't make a lot of sense. And it won't be the last time that I am not going to jump all over race issues to try to explain it when I don't think it played a significant part.

The attorney general (white, for those keeping race scores) who prosecuted this case urged the media not to sensationalize the race issues.

Quote:

I don't know that it was a hate crime, but I am certainly willing to admit that it sure might have had something to do with it.

It may have, yes. There is not much evidence that it was though, which makes the focus on race by Baldimo seem to have more to do with characteristics he wishes to project onto this case than anything else.

Quote:

I mean c'mon, the guy tried to kill 8 people and succeeded in killing six. And it's only because he was being run off some property and being called racial names? If that's the case in its entirety, I'd say a defense of insanity would have been more the way to go.

The criminal's actions don't have to make sense for this to have nothing to do with race.

This unwavering focus on race, despite the evidence at hand, really seems to have more to do with the predisposition of those who look for racial motivation than the case.

0 Replies

Craven,

I DO see your points. Like I said I have no idea if it was a hate crime or not. And I don't like racism at all. I think the press has a lot to do with promoting the racial issue more often than not and I did find it a bit strange that this time when asked not to make a racial issue of it, they didn't.

And you're right. It doesn't have to make sense. It was a criminal act and motivation may or may not have much to do with it.

I can understand where questions could be raised on so many issues.

0 Replies

Craven, Very well explained; a predisposition seems to be at the crux.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

...that this guy shot 7 unarmed white people for no reason.

That's where you are wrong. the argument started because Van was on somebody's property, and they told him to get off. That's the conflict.

The fact that during the conflict, some racial names might have been hurled does not make it a hate crime. To be a hate crime, the cause of the conflict had to be race. Here, the cause of the conflict was that Vang was on private property.

If you don't understand that distinction, then it is because you are purposely trying to avoid it.

0 Replies

In case you don't think tellling a hunter to get off private property is a conflict situation, let me tell you this true story, related to me by the wife of this family..

When they lived in New Jersey, this family had a house on the fringe of the woods. One day, the wife spied a hunter walking on their property. She immediately told her husband. Not wanting shots to go off around the yard his kids played in, the husband went to the rear upstairs window and hollered at the hunter to get off his property.

The hunter looked up at the husband yelling through the window, took his rifle, aimed it directly at the husband, then put it down and went into the woods.

No shots were fired, but an attitude was being displayed.

When the owners of the property told Vang to get off the property, the guess here is that they were probably not too polite about it. I don't know if any racial remarks were made, but it doesn't make a difference. The initial conflict was about getting off someone's property, and those can be nasty.

0 Replies

Hate crime that wasn't called one.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know