Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:36 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Hmong permit holder acquitted 
Author Message
 Post subject: Hmong permit holder acquitted
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:29 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
From the strib so it must be true:

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/39982497.html


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:47 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
I don't agree with that ruling. And again alcohol was involved


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:40 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:39 pm
Posts: 533
Location: Mankato Area
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:57 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
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.

_________________
Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.

--------------------
Next MN carry permit class: TBD.

Permit to Carry MN
--------------------

jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:36 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
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?

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:38 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
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 . . .

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:42 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:40 am
Posts: 3752
Location: East Suburbs
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.

_________________
Srigs

Side Guard Holsters
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:43 am 
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 2422
Location: Hopkins, MN
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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:53 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:59 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:01 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:01 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:05 pm
Posts: 199
Location: Twin Cities, MN
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.

_________________
"My name is Shosanna Dreyfus. This is the face of Jewish vengeance."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:40 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 1757
Location: Whittier
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.

_________________
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:48 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 1060
Location: Savage, MN
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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:21 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:48 am
Posts: 232
My head hurts...... :?


:lol: Sietch


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group