Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Hmong permit holder acquitted
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11874		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  MostlyHarmless [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Hmong permit holder acquitted
From the strib so it must be true:

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/39982497.html
Author:  JimC [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't agree with that ruling. And again alcohol was involved
Author:  Dee [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
I read that twice. With all those names flying around, I couldnt tell who was who and who shot who. It reminded me of one of those Russian books with fifty million characters where you've already lost the thread of the story by the third page.
Author:  princewally [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
JimC wrote:
I don't agree with that ruling. And again alcohol was involved


Did you read the article? The designated driver used his legally carried gun to stop a group, one of whom had a gun, from beating his brother. There was a bit of a force disparity there, dontcha think? And alcohol wasn't involved in the decision making.
Author:  plblark [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:36 am ]
Post subject: 
I had to flow chart who was on which side and whom shot whom when ....

Jim: did you even READ the article or did the mention of alcohol blind you to the realities of self defense once again?
Author:  joelr [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:38 am ]
Post subject: 
JimC wrote:
I don't agree with that ruling. And again alcohol was involved
Well, yeah, it was. Apparently, some drunks tried to beat up a sober guy's brother, and then him, and then started getting all shooty. Sounds like a horrible situation, and assuming accuracy in the news story (which is possible, after all), it sounds like he handled it okay, if not perfectly. Perfectly isn't required, you know.

There is one funny thing in the story -- Fang was "minding his own business." As I keep saying in class, that's how trouble always seems to start . . .
Author:  Srigs [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:42 am ]
Post subject: 
It does sound like he did a good job for the situation he allowed himself to get in. He met the 4 criteria for self defense as far as the jury was concerned. That in the end was the only thing that mattered.
Author:  Pakrat [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:43 am ]
Post subject: 
The prosecution's strategy was to say the permit holder was drunk? Did I read that right? Seems like that would have been easy to prove, had he been drunk.
Author:  JimC [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:53 am ]
Post subject: 
This is the part that bothers me. He could of retreated

Fang said he ran to his car and got his .40-caliber Glock out of the glove box.


And The Booze

Prosecutor Juan Hoyos told jurors Xao Vang, the homeowner's nephew, was drunk and got in a fight with Tou and Blong Fang. When Yang Vang tried to intervene, Blong Fang pointed a gun at him and fired four times. Three of the shots hit him. Kevin Vang was injured trying to defend his father, he said.
Author:  Dick Unger [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Fang said he and his brother were attacked by men with fists and guns. He got his gun and went back to defend his brother. He was again attacked, and claimed defense of self and others as an explaination for his actions.

The prosecution discounted his story and charged Fang with attempted murder. Fang had the burden of proving his defenses or being convicted. He apparently proved his defenses, and so was acquitted.

Alcohol use by Fang would tend to make him less believable and less sympathetic to the jury, I think.

This is just the kind of a case anyone could be involved with. I'm glad it worked for him. It's really hard for a defendant to meet the burdon of proof for these defenses, especially when the police investigators don't gather any proof of defenses and even try to deminish adefendant's chances. Barry Voss is a good attorney, btw.
Author:  MostlyHarmless [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:01 am ]
Post subject: 
Pakrat wrote:
The prosecution's strategy was to say the permit holder was drunk? Did I read that right? Seems like that would have been easy to prove, had he been drunk.


No. Xao (drunken nephew) got in a fight with Blong (permit holder) and Tou (permit holder's brother). Yang (homeowner and uncle of drunken nephew), who had been asleep, woke up, grabbed his shotgun, and came to the defense of Xao, firing shots.

I would expect that the prosecution would have relied heavily on the fact that Blong had time to retrieve his pistol from his car as evidence against self-defense. Of course, we do not know whether Tou had an opportunity to disengage and retreat.
Author:  Sietch [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
This is ridiculous. It's constructed like a puzzle. Just think about this.

Established:
Quote:
Yang Pao Vang, the homeowner and host


Fang bros. are guests.
Fisticuffs. Then:
Quote:
Fang said he saw another man holding a long-barrelled gun, heard it fire and saw his brother drop to the floor


Fang No. 1, retrieves his gun from his car parked outside.
Quote:
He said he had a conceal-carry permit.

He returns. Gunfire, then:
Quote:
Fang said both he and his brother were shot when someone he couldn't see started firing out a partly opened door as they tried to flee the house. That was Kevin Vang, who was awakened by the gunfire and grabbed the shotgun in his bedroom.


Finally, one centrally important character is identified:
Quote:
Xao Vang, the homeowner's nephew, was drunk and got in a fight with Tou [Fang] and Blong [Fang]


But, it seems to matter little considering:
Quote:
When Yang Vang tried to intervene, Blong Fang pointed a gun at him and fired


So, in apparent summation:
Quote:
Kevin Vang was injured trying to defend his father



This man Pheifer could not have butchered the plot more grossly. No one could be expected to sift the story from this article at first glance.

But, putting the pieces together, Yang Vang (as far as we can tell) fired a "long-barrelled[sic] gun" at one Fang. This elicited gunfire from the other Fang, by which Vang was shot.

Look how the author concludes the article.
Quote:
When Yang Vang tried to intervene, Blong Fang pointed a gun at him and fired four times. Three of the shots hit him. Kevin Vang was injured trying to defend his father, he said.


It's obvious that Mr. Pheifer doesn't agree with the court. Note the manner in which any action taken against the Vang group is a matter of fact, something that surely happened. Yet, all damage suffered by the Fangs is presented as their opinion, "he said" or "he testified", allowing that it is unverified.

Example: "He said he had a conceal-carry permit."
Does Pheifer doubt this, was it a mystery to the court and all involved? Will it remain a haunting a enigma? Could such an assertion be easily verified? While of interest to police, was his permit status at all relevant to the attempted murder case? Is it useful to readers in understanding the facts of the case?

Now I'm speculating. But, did a Permit-to-Carry holder really declare that he possessed a "conceal-carry permit"?

The author probably isn't just an awful writer, but structured the article to give the Vang's the final word, painting them as victims of handgun violence.
The Strib is a joke.
Author:  Macx [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd say yellow journalism, but I'd be sure someone would misunderstand it as racial rather than an accusation against the author and a suggestion that his press card be pulled. Pheifer should be no closer to any newspaper's staff than any other (non-press) person writting letters to the editor.

7th grade school newspapers are written more clearly and articulately and with less bias.
Author:  Lenny7 [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sietch wrote:
The author probably isn't just an awful writer, but structured the article to give the Vang's the final word, painting them as victims of handgun violence.
The Strib is a joke.


Nice deconstruct on the article. I wouldnt' have had the patience to go through all that.

JimC wrote:
I don't agree with that ruling. And again alcohol was involved


By your implication, you're using the same sort of logic MADD mothers use when attributing car accidents to alcohol use. if the driver was drunk, it was alcohol related. If the passenger was drunk, it was alcohol related. If a drunk was crossing the street and got hit by a truck, it was alcohol related. If a sober driver hits a drunk driver, it was alcohol related.

All true of course, but you could also say it was tire related because all of the cars had tires. I'm not a proponent of drunk driving, but the way they twist the truth waters down their message and discredits them.
Author:  MNXD9 [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
My head hurts...... :?


:lol: Sietch
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/