More on Chai Vang
Drew at Darn Floor has the most detailed account of the Wisconsin hunter shooting that I have seen. It includes Vang’s and others statements to the police.
As it stands, it would seem to me that he was taunted and even shot at. However, that action doesn’t warrant hunting down and shooting unarmed people in the back.
November 28th, 2004 at 4:08 pm
Howdy! Max here. I was just passing it around that due to a Blogger screw-up my old blog MIND WARP (name-Butchmule)is now dead. It’s been replaced by MAXS’ MIND WARP (name-Max). Help me pass it on. Thanks.
November 28th, 2004 at 7:50 pm
Bottom line: the gun bigots are going to blame the semi-auto for Vang being able to chase down and kill 6 people.
However, remember Sgt Alvin York in WWI? He killed over 20 Germans, mainly with a bolt action rifle. (He did use a .45 pistol on a few men that got too close.) I doubt he took much more time than Vang needed. And, unlike these so-called hunters who apparently only had one rifle between them, all the Germans were armed – some with heavy machine guns.
November 28th, 2004 at 9:44 pm
Thanks for the link, SayUncle. I think I’ve had about six blog entries on this incident so far. I’ll probably continue to relay any new developments in the investigation (such as the reopening of a 2001 hunting murder case that may be related) since this happened right where I grew up, and I’m pretty interested in seeing how this turns out.
November 30th, 2004 at 11:33 pm
It the American’s way, shoot first and ask questions later, better him than me? shoot in the back double point for Vang since they started first and plus, Vang didnt get a change to ask them to see if everyone was armed!! why you ask? because they were the one who started to shoot him in the back remember? I’m glad they missed because Chai Vang would be another Asian guy burry in the millions of land and no one will know. Stop incest and maybe some of you will we civilize!!! Hmong hunt for food and White hunt as a sport and does that make sense? why kill something if you dont plan to eat everything from it?
December 1st, 2004 at 10:20 am
All i have to say right now is what Sandy said was enlightening, well thought out and I applaud her. I’ve wrriten about 5 comments previouly so im going to make this one very clear no big words just some simple thoughts no ones has brought up. My thought process will be based on the assumption that most of what Chia Vang said is true. Im sorry guys But Chai Vang right or wrong, bottom line is when your in the middle of the woods confronted by numerous men who outnumber you, curse at you beligerently, and shoot to scare you if that really is as the case may be, you will react. Some men may have tucked tail and run, some less skilled men might have shot back missed and had the hunters chase him down and kill him in what they would have eventually claimed to be self defense of course. You know the more i think about it, why is it everyone assumes even if the white men shot first, that they were only shooting to scare? Is that a gurantee they were shooting “to NOT kill him”? Maybe they were just bad shots. Comon now guys logic dictates that men who surround you, curse angrily at you, then fire a shot at you as your walking away, those are acts of hostility. And the law does state that you are allowed to defend yourself with lethal force if lethal forced is being used against you and you feel you are in imminent danger of lethal bodily harm. If you look up any fire arm legal codes it will tell you if a man is shooting at you and you truly beleive he is trying to kill you and you have a gun you are allowed to shoot him back. Its not a definte the white hunter didnt shoot to kill. Hes not a proffessional marksmen in which case his shooting abilities may have not been up to par with Vangs, and when he shot to kill Vang in a rage he simply missed Vang and hit dirt. Vang may have been the more effective killer as he was trained for years in the “US” military. In any case if we are to presume that the reason Vang shot and killed is becasue he is a pure devil(evil incarnate), isnt it just as reasonable an idea and statement to say that those men tried to kill Chai Vang but were not as effective at a gun battle as he was..he was of course a trained military man. I know some of you will react badly to what i have just said but really think about it? If what Chai Vang said is true they shot at him first, he may have beleived it was a shot not close to him becausee they were just horrid shots, and better to shoot back and defend himself before more shots rained upon him from the outnumbering odds of the belligerent white men he was going to have to engage and fight? If he truly thought this then isnt it better to shoot back and defend yourself then die in vain…correct? Im sorry but this whole story and hypothesis of the sequence of actual events just seems too one sided to me. Yes the end result is one small asian man killed sixwhite men. But who is to say that one asian man was the only one in this tragic incident with the intent to kill. If the white hunters really were the ones who shot fisrt, logic would dictate that Chai Vang simply reacted as he was trained he returned fire, and disabled the enemy. Whether he used excessive force i agree is a definate possibilty but that is another subject that deserves its own seperate posting. Chai Vang was a soilder and in war soilders are taught the rules of engagnement, i know this is civilized society, but bottom line is he was shot and and he returned fire. In time of war he would have been a hero, who prevailed and achieved victory through greatly outnumbered odds. Im sorry i am white but bottom line is i have a hard time beleiving that it is a fact Chai Vangs intentions were “bad” and the white hunters were “good” simply because they are now dead. Bottom line maybe Chai was just a better shooter and more adept gun fighter then the causcasian gentlemen were. Maybe if he had not reacted the way he did he would not be here right now. If it is a possibily Chai Vang is a cold blooded murderer it is also just as rational a possiblty those white men were cold blooded murderers, both sides exchanged gun fire just one side ended up winning and one side all shot to hell and dead. Who shot first remains to be seen and i truly beleive that should be the deciding factor in whether or not Chang loses his livlyhood. The way the media is portraying this story im sorry but under any other circumstances I may have beleived the hunters, but Chia Vang isnt getting a fair shot here. And seeing how the media delivers this story proves my point further. Justice has to be blind to race and color the rules have to apply to everyone or it can not rightfully be called justice. It more like justice if your the appropriate skin color. That first shot if it is true the white hunters shot first, could have potentially been followed by a fury of gunfire leaving Vang the deceased is this story. Im sorry but if the Media and law enforcement are goign to cruicify Vang before the results of the investigation come to light then i am willing to play devils advocate here if it can bring light to another perspective i havnt heard stated yet…. if that is what you perceive me as after stating my hypothesis. The thing is everything i said is pure speculation but guess what Vang is right now being torn to pieces by the local media and local communities through pure specualtion, This is American and MR. VAng deserves the right to a fair trial and a chance to defend himself. I pray for a fair, swift and speedy trial for both parties involved god bless you. And another thing for all you racist hicks do you realized that alot of Hmongs in America today are here as a direct result of their part in aiding american in the secret war against cummunism in the Viet Nam war. They were granted Visa to America because of there aid to help fight the war for a free world, for an American cause. We really are quick to forget things when its not convenient for us to remember….
December 1st, 2004 at 4:08 pm
Well said #5 Comment by Victor Pallone…you took all the words out.
December 1st, 2004 at 6:12 pm
Of course, you’re working on the assumption that Vang’s version of the story is 100% accurate. Given that he’s already changed his story once (and his first version was laughably illogical), and given that there are aspects of his story that do not match up with on-scene evidence, I’d say you’re on pretty shaky ground.
Vang will get a fair trial, though his attorneys have their work cut out for them. Vang is not being “torn to pieces” in the local media. (Unless you equate reporting the known facts to being “torn to pieces.”) Rather, like some commenters here, the media seems intent on uncovering visceral anti-Hmong racism up here; something that I just don’t see. The Hmong community as a whole are supportive of the victims and their families. They are not “siding with their own” over this.
But let’s play “blame the victims” and call them “racist hicks” because it couldn’t possibly be true that Vang is simply a murderer, regardless of his country of origin. Could it?
December 1st, 2004 at 6:18 pm
And I’ll say it again: why haven’t the police confirmed whether or not the one hunter’s gun found at the scene was fired? Simple parafin test on the person who had it or a check of the barrel would do. If the gun had not been fired, that definitely refutes Vang’s story. If it had been, it doesn’t necessarily confirm Vang’s version but.
December 1st, 2004 at 7:38 pm
One of the surviving hunters did admit to firing back at Vang. But as you say, that doeesn’t confirm Vang’s story at all.
Thanks again for all the traffic. I get depressed blogging on this subject, though. I think I’ll have to move on to other things.
December 1st, 2004 at 9:36 pm
Drew your comments are great! I couldn’t have said it better.
December 1st, 2004 at 9:39 pm
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT SAWYER COUNTY,STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. __________________
CHAI SOUA VANG, DOB 09/24/68 A/M, 810 4TH STREET, ST. PAUL, MN 55106,
Defendant.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Your complainant, Gary Gillis, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says as follows:
COUNT 1: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
On or about November 21, 2004, in the Township of Meteor, County of Sawyer, State of Wisconsin, the above-named defendant, did cause the death of Dennis Drew, with intent to kill that person, by use of a dangerous weapon, to wit: a rifle, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.01(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(b), a Class A Felony, and upon conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. And further, invoking the provisions of § 939.63(1)(b), because the defendant committed this offense while using a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment for the underlying crime may be increased by not more than five (5) years.
COUNT 2: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
On or about November 21, 2004, in the Township of Meteor, County of Sawyer, State of Wisconsin, the above-named defendant, did cause the death of Mark Roidt, with intent to kill that person, by use of a dangerous weapon, to wit: a rifle, contrary to §§ 940.01(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(b), a Class A Felony, and upon conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. And further, invoking the provisions of § 939.63(1)(b), because the defendant committed this offense while using a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment for the underlying crime may be increased by not more than five (5) years.
COUNT 3: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
On or about November 21, 2004, in the Township of Meteor, County of Sawyer, State of Wisconsin, the above-named defendant, did cause the death of Robert Crotteau, with intent to kill that person, by use of a dangerous weapon, to wit: a rifle, contrary to §§ 940.01(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(b), a Class A Felony, and upon conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. And further, invoking the provisions of § 939.63(1)(b), because the defendant committed this offense while using a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment for the underlying crime may be increased by not more than five (5) years.
COUNT 4: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
On or about November 21, 2004, in the Township of Meteor, County of Sawyer, State of Wisconsin, the above-named defendant, did cause the death of Joe Crotteau, with intent to kill that person, by use of a dangerous weapon, to wit: a rifle, contrary to §§ 940.01(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(b), a Class A Felony, and upon conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. And further, invoking the provisions of § 939.63(1)(b), because the defendant committed this offense while using a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment for the underlying crime may be increased by not more than five (5) years.
COUNT 5: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
On or about November 21, 2004, in the Township of Meteor, County of Sawyer, State of Wisconsin, the above-named defendant did cause the death of Allan Laski, with intent to kill that person, by use of a dangerous weapon, to wit: a rifle, contrary to §§ 940.01(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(b), a Class A Felony, and upon conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. And further, invoking the provisions of § 939.63(1)(b), because the defendant committed this offense while using a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment for the underlying crime may be increased by not more than five (5) years.
COUNT 6: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
On or about November 21, 2004, in the Township of Meteor, County of Sawyer, State of Wisconsin, the above-named defendant, did cause the death of Jessica Willers, with intent to kill that person, by use of a dangerous weapon, to wit: a rifle, contrary to §§ 940.01(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(b), a Class A Felony, and upon conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. And further, invoking the provisions of § 939.63(1)(b), because the defendant committed this offense while using a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment for the underlying crime may be increased by not more than five (5) years.
COUNT 7: ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
On or about November 21, 2004, in the Township of Meteor, County of Sawyer, State of Wisconsin, the above-named defendant, attempted to cause the death of Lauren Hesebeck, with intent to kill that person, by use of a dangerous weapon, to wit; a rifle, contrary to §§ 940.01(1)(a), 939.32 and 939.63(1)(b), a Class B Felony, and upon conviction may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to exceed sixty (60) years. And further, invoking the provisions of § 939.63(1)(b), because the defendant committed this offense while using a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment for the underlying crime may be increased by not more than five (5) years.
COUNT 8: ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
On or about November 21, 2004, in the Township of Meteor, County of Sawyer, State of Wisconsin, the above-named defendant, attempted to cause the death of Terry Willers, with intent to kill that person, by use of a dangerous weapon, to wit; a rifle, contrary to §§ 940.01(1)(a), 939.32 and 939.63(1)(b), a Class B Felony, and upon conviction may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to exceed sixty (60) years. And further, invoking the provisions of § 939.63(1)(b), because the defendant committed this offense while using a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment for the underlying crime may be increased by not more than five (5) years.
THE BASIS FOR YOUR COMPLAINANT’S CHARGE FOR SUCH OFFENSES IS:
1. Your complainant, Gary Gillis, is an Investigator with the Sawyer County Sheriff’s Department and has been employed as a law enforcement officer for seventeen years and makes this complaint based upon his personal knowledge, information and belief based on his own investigation.
2. The defendant, Chai Soua Vang, DOB 09/24/68, has a last known place of residence of 810 – 4th Street in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
3. Your complainant, along with fellow deputies from the Sawyer County Sheriff’s Department, other law enforcement agencies, and Special Agents of the Division of Criminal Investigation, Wisconsin Department of Justice, have been assigned to investigate the shooting deaths of Dennis Drew, Mark Roidt, Robert Crotteau, Joe Crotteau, Allan Laski and Jessica Willers and the shootings of Lauren Hesebeck and Terry Willers. Your complainant believes the information set forth in this complaint to be truthful and reliable based upon complainant’s personal knowledge as set forth herein, as well as upon information and belief based upon statements of citizen/witnesses as set forth herein each of whom had personal knowledge of that which they related; information received from fellow law enforcement officers which information is believed to be truthful and reliable as the information was obtained in the course of the officers’ official duties; information received from Ramsey County Minnesota Medical Examiner (“Medical Examiner”) Michael McGee and Assistant Medical Examiners (“Assistant Medical Examiner”) Kelly Mills and Paul Nora, experts in the field of Pathology, who performed autopsies on the bodies of Dennis Drew, Mark Roidt, Robert Crotteau, Joe Crotteau, Al Laski and Jessica Willers; and statements of the defendant made to your complainant against his penal interest. The statements of Terry Willers and Lauren Hesebeck as set forth in this complaint were provided to Special Agent John Christophersen of the Wisconsin Department of Justice, Division of Criminal Investigation.
4. On November 21, 2004, which was the second day of Wisconsin’s rifle deer hunting season, at approximately 12:30 p.m. your complainant was dispatched to 394N Deer Lake Road in the Town of Meteor, County of Sawyer, State of Wisconsin, in response to a report of a shooting with multiple victims. After arriving on the scene, your complainant determined that Mark Roidt, Robert Crotteau, Joe Crotteau, Allan Laski and Jessica Willers were dead at the scene from apparent gun shot wounds. Your complainant also determined that Dennis Drew had been shot in the abdomen and was later advised on November 22, 2004, that Drew had died from his wounds. Your complainant also determined that Terry Willers had been shot in the neck and Lauren Hesebeck was shot in the shoulder.
5. Terry Willers stated that he and Robert Crotteau were co-owners of the property where the shootings occurred and that the property was the location of a deer hunting cabin which was being used by various family members and friends for the rifle deer hunting season which had begun the previous day. As Terry Willers was returning to the cabin from hunting that morning, and while carrying his hunting rifle slung over his shoulder, he observed an individual sitting in a tree stand located on the property. Terry Willers used a walkie talkie to communicate with other persons in the cabin and asked whether anyone was supposed to be in the tree stand. After being informed that no one should be in the tree stand, Terry Willers then approached the person, whom he described as an Asian male with a rifle, and told him to leave the tree stand and the property. Terry Willers then reported over the walkie talkie that he had told the individual, later identified as the defendant, to leave the property. Terry Willers then followed the defendant as the defendant walked down a trail.
6. The defendant advised your complainant that he was in the military from 1989 to 1991 and had qualified as a marksman and had hunted deer since 1992, including the vicinity where the events of November 21, 2004, occurred. The defendant also stated that on November 21, 2004, he became lost while hunting and came upon a tree stand that he climbed into with his rifle. About fifteen minutes later a hunter approached him and told him he was on private property. The defendant then climbed down and began walking away. As he was walking away he heard the hunter make a call on his walkie-talkie but did not hear what was said. Your complainant believes that this hunter was Terry Willers.
7. Lauren Hesebeck stated that after Terry Willers called back to the cabin, Hesebeck and Robert Crotteau, Joe Crotteau, Dennis Drew and Mark Roidt drove two all terrain vehicles (“ATVs”) to where Terry Willers and the defendant were located. Hesebeck and Terry Willers stated that neither Hesebeck, Robert Crotteau, Joe Crotteau, Dennis Drew, nor Mark Roidt brought any firearms with them. Robert Crotteau informed the defendant that he was trespassing, told the defendant to leave and used profanity. Robert Crotteau also stated that he would report the defendant to the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) and that maybe that would teach the defendant. Robert Crotteau then yelled out for someone to get the defendant’s hunting license number and the number was yelled out and Terry Willers wrote down the number on an ATV. The defendant did not reply to Robert Crotteau but continued walking. Terry Willers and Hesebeck stated that at no time did anyone touch the defendant, make any threatening gestures, or threaten to shoot the defendant. The defendant stated that the hunters told him to leave the property and used profanity and racial slurs. The defendant admitted to your complainant that he heard someone in the group say that the defendant’s hunting license tag number should be written down and that he also heard someone say they were going to turn in the defendant to a warden. The defendant stated that the hunters told him to “follow the ATV trail and get the fuck out of here and never come back.” The defendant also stated that the only person he saw with a gun was the person who first approached him in the tree stand.
8. Terry Willers and Hesebeck stated that after the defendant walked away no one followed the defendant and that Terry Willers began walking through the woods toward the cabin while the other individuals turned the ATVs around to head back to the cabin. Hesebeck stated that he looked back and saw the defendant about 20-30 yards away with his back turned doing something with his firearm and then saw the scope on the defendant’s gun drop off. Hesebeck then saw the defendant turn and point his rifle at Willers who was about 25 yards away from Hesebeck. Hesebeck and Terry Willers stated that at that point, Terry Willers unslung his rifle and held it in front of his body but did not point it at the defendant and yelled for the defendant to put the gun down and get out of here. Hesebeck and Terry Willers stated that the defendant then started shooting. Terry Willers stated he dived to the ground and heard one round hit near him and then a second round struck him in the neck and exited his shoulder and that the shot paralyzed him. Terry Willers stated that he then heard additional shots fired and saw Dennis Drew on the ground. Hesebeck stated that he jumped off the ATV and heard multiple shots and to his right saw Drew down and behind him saw Roidt down.
9. Your complainant has reviewed a provisional report of an autopsy of Mark Roidt performed by Assistant Medical Examiner Paul Nora on November 22, 2004. Dr. Nora’s report states that the cause of Roidt’s death of was a gunshot wound to the head. Your complainant has reviewed a provisional report of an autopsy of Dennis Drew performed by Medical Examiner Michael McGee on November 23, 2004. Dr. McGee’s report states that the cause of Drew’s death was a gunshot wound to the abdomen that entered on his left side.
10. The defendant initially told your complainant that he did not shoot any of the hunters. The defendant stated that the first hunter he saw who had a gun took the defendant’s gun and shot the others and then forced the defendant to walk to each of the bodies. The defendant later changed his story.
11. In the defendant’s second version recounting the incident, he stated that he walked about 15 to 20 yards away from the other hunters and turned around and saw the man who had a rifle walking toward the other hunters, take the rifle off his shoulder and take it into his hands. The defendant stated he then heard someone yell, “What did you say?” The defendant stated he replied, “I didn’t say anything,” and the other person responded, “I saw you give me the finger.” The defendant stated he again replied that he didn’t say anything. The defendant stated he continued walking about another ten yards when he looked back again and saw the man with the rifle pointing the rifle at him. The defendant states that he then dropped into a crouch position and the person shot at the defendant but missed. The defendant then removed the scope from his rifle and shot twice at the man with the rifle who dropped to the ground. The defendant then saw the other men run toward the ATVs, which had gun cases, and he thought they were going for guns. The defendant stated he then started to shoot at the men near the ATVs and saw two or three more men fall to the ground. Your complainant personally examined the ATVs at the scene of the shooting and observed that none of them contained any guns, gun cases, or gun racks.
12. Lauren Hesebeck also stated that after Terry Willers, Drew and Roidt were shot, he attempted to hide behind an ATV but the defendant appeared at the ATV and shot at him three times as he scrambled around the ATV and that the third shot hit him in the shoulder. After being shot and collapsing, Hesebeck heard additional shots. Hesebeck pointed out the area where these additional shots originated to Agent Christophersen. Agent Christophersen stated that the location was in the area of where Robert Crotteau’s body was found, approximately 40 yards away from the ATVs. Hesebeck stated that he then heard additional gunshots and pointed out the area where these shots originated to Agent Christophersen. Agent Christophersen stated that the location was in the area of where Joe Crotteau’s body was found, approximately 467 feet away from the ATVs. Your complainant states that there were no firearms found near the bodies of either Robert or Joe Crotteau. The defendant stated that he saw a man running through the woods toward the cabin yelling for help and ran after him and shot at him two or three times. The defendant stated that the man was not armed but that he thought the man was going for help or a gun. The defendant stated that when he was about 15 to 20 feet away from the man he shot him in the back.
13. Your complainant has reviewed a provisional report of an autopsy of Robert Crotteau performed by Assistant Medical Examiner Kelly Mills on November 22, 2004. Dr. Mills’ report states that the cause of death of Robert Crotteau was a single gunshot wound to the lower back. Your complainant has reviewed a provisional report of an autopsy of Joe Crotteau performed by Medical Examiner Michael McGee on November 22, 2004. Dr. McGee’s report states that the cause of death of Joe Crotteau was multiple gunshot wounds. The report further indicates that Joe Crotteau was shot four times, all shots entered from the back.
14. Hesebeck stated that after the defendant shot him he began to provide first aid to Terry Willers and Drew and used a walkie-talkie to call back to the cabin stating that he had been shot and needed help. Carter Crotteau stated to Special Agent Jody Wormet, that in response to the call for help he left the cabin, unarmed, on an ATV. On the way he picked up Brandon Willers who had been hunting and was armed. With the assistance of Hesebeck, Brandon Willers and Carter Crotteau removed Terry Willers from the area. The defendant stated that he heard someone call on a walkie-talkie, “We’ve been shot and need help.” The defendant stated he observed three men approach on an ATV and stated that they were all armed with rifles, so he did not shoot at them. As the men approached, the defendant stated he turned his reversible coat from orange to camouflage and reloaded his firearm.
15. Carter Crotteau and Brandon Willers stated that on their way back to the cabin with Terry Willers, they were passed by another ATV being ridden by Allan Laski and Jessica Willers, who were heading toward the scene. Hesebeck advised officers that after Terry Willers was removed from the scene, he heard another ATV approaching the area and then heard more gunshots and the ATV stopped. The defendant stated that he observed another ATV approaching with two people and that the driver had a gun on his shoulder. The defendant then began to run and the ATV drove past the defendant and stopped about 10 to 15 feet away from the defendant. The defendant stated that the people on the ATV saw him and one man removed the gun from his shoulder with one hand while he kept his other hand on the ATV handlebars. The defendant stated that he then shot three or four times and both people fell off the ATV onto the ground. Based upon your complainant’s personal examination of the scene, the two persons described above were Allan Laski and Jessica Willers, whose bodies were found lying at the edge of an ATV trail 50 to 60 yards away from the scene of the original shootings. Based upon your complainant’s personal examination of the scene, there were no firearms located near the bodies of Laski or Jessica Willers. Hesebeck stated that there were no weapons on the ATV.
16. Your complainant has reviewed a provisional report of an autopsy of Allan Laski performed by Assistant Medical Examiner Kelly Mills on November 22, 2004. Dr. Mills’ report states that the cause of death of Allan Laski was multiple gun shot wounds. The report further indicates that one shot entered his lower back, one shot entered his mid-back, and the third shot entered his right buttock. Your complainant has reviewed a provisional report of an autopsy of Jessica Willers performed by Assistant Medical Examiner Kelly Mills on November 22, 2004. Dr. Mills’ report states that the cause of Jessica Willers’ death was multiple gunshot wounds. The report further indicates that there were two gunshots to the back of her body with one entering her upper back and the other her left buttock.
17. Hesebeck also stated that after hearing the shots after the second ATV approached, the defendant appeared near his location and the defendant stated something to the effect of, “Fucker’s still alive.” Hesebeck stated that prior to that he had obtained Terry Willer’s rifle, and after the defendant’s statement he dived behind a dirt hill. Hesebeck also stated that after making the statement the defendant fired once or twice at him and that Hesebeck shot at the defendant once, after which the defendant turned and ran away. The defendant stated that after shooting the two people on the ATV he started running back to the area of the original shooting and saw one of the men still standing and that the defendant then yelled, “You’re not dead yet?” The defendant states that he then shot one more time in the direction of the man but did not know whether he hit him or not. The defendant stated he continued to run down the ATV trail.
18. The defendant stated that after the events described above he ran away and did not return. He also stated that at one point he decided that he did not want to shoot anybody else so he threw his remaining ammunition into a swamp. The defendant further stated that about an hour after throwing away the ammunition, he heard an airplane overhead and thought that the plane was looking for him so he decided to turn himself in.
19. Your complainant has reviewed a report of DNR warden Jeremy Peery that reflects that during the afternoon of November 21, 2004, he was involved in searching for the defendant. During the afternoon Warden Peery was informed by Darrell Gass that while hunting he met an individual he described as a Hmong wearing camouflage and carrying a black rifle who stated that he was lost and asked how he could get to a road. Your complainant has reviewed a report prepared by Deputy Jeff Cain which reflects that he was advised by Walter Cieslak that he was hunting near Serly Camp road when the defendant appeared wearing camouflage clothes and a rifle slung on his back. The defendant advised Cieslak that he had been hunting, was lost, and asked for a ride. Cieslak offered to drive the defendant to Cieslak’s truck. Cieslak also stated that when they arrived at his truck they were met by a DNR warden who took the defendant into custody. The defendant stated that he came across a hunter with an ATV and asked him for a ride to the road and that the hunter drove the defendant to the hunter’s cabin where a DNR warden was waiting.
20. Warden Peery’s report also indicated that after dark an ATV driven by Walter Cieslak with the defendant therein, pulled up to his truck. Walter Cieslak stated, “This guy is lost, can you help him?” Warden Peery then placed the defendant under arrest and seized a black SKS semiautomatic rifle which the defendant was holding and was later determined to be unloaded. Warden Peery also stated that the defendant complied with his commands but never made any statements and seemed extremely calm.
Your complainant, therefore, prays that the defendant be charged and dealt with according to law. Dated this _____ day of November, 2004.
GARY GILLIS
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____________ day of November, 2004.
ROY R. KORTE
Assistant Attorney General
Special Prosecutor for Sawyer County
State Bar No. 1019492
Approved for filing this ________________ day of November, 2004.
__________________________________
DONALD V. LATORRACA
Assistant Attorney General
Special Prosecutor for Sawyer County
State Bar No. 1011251
Comment by Scott — December 01, 2004 @ 1:15 am
December 1st, 2004 at 9:53 pm
Does this not clear up alot of things?
December 2nd, 2004 at 9:18 am
Bottom line it makes no sense for Vang to have shot first when he was already in the process of leaving peacefully. Something had to set him off and have him return fire. My guess was self preservation and not wanted to be shot to death by the racist white hunters. After that everyting is debatable. The hunters had to have shot first. Logic dictates that if Vang had shot first it would have been done when he was surrounded and being cursed at, when they claim he took the first shot the time frame when he was walking away just goes totally agisnt human nature. People will usually react violently and irradic when they are cornered. Unles Vang has a serious past pattern of violent mental illness i just dont see it in him. He was a U.S. soilder and he reacted as a soilder should, when fired upon by a hostile he defended himself and didnt stop what he beleived was self defense until the enemy was totally disabled. Under different circumstates and in war time Vang would have benn hailed a hero who survived and overcame tremondouly overwhelming odds. In court it will definatly come down to who the jury beleives and who seems more credible. There are no witnesses besides the dead and otherwise biased people who were actualyl involved in the tragic incident. Personally if i was Vang and some hillbillys cursed and me and called me a wop and when i was leavin they shot at me. Most likly i would have done the same thing, shot at every last one of them until i knew for certain they were no longer going to come after me. I may have only seen one gun openly but who knows how many other guns they have tucked in there belt. As far as the gentlemen i chased down and shot i assume he was probably going back to the cabin to get a gun and chase me down in his av and kill me dead. If Vang did not shoot first i beleive what he did was justifiable homicide. The argument i have starts with self preservation. At the very least Vang can plead man slughter with mitigating circumstances, in court it should be fairly easy to paint a picture that he was under alot of stress when surrounded and lost and in a hostile environment. Then surrounded and cursed at. He lost control of his emotions and lost his head, went crazy for a couple of minutes. Either way debate on sequence of events is worthless for you have no witnesses as far, absolutly no concrete evidence, this case will be determined on who has a better lawyer and whose lawyer is better at imposing his will on the jury. This incident is entirly too grey which is why these forums even exist. God bless the deceased and god bless Vang. I pray he gets a fair tral…Maybe those stupid hicks in the forest will think a little bit harder the next time they are about to harrass an Asian. In California those hillbilies wouldnt last too long. I used to think us Italions were on the top of the food chain as far as violent organzied crime was concerned. But those Asians in LA would shoot hicks dead in the street and it would be normal. Asians arent as passive as i remember them being. I guess the ideal minority has just become the toughest craziest minorities around. Those Vietnamese especially they have been deemed by the FBA as the most violent gangs in the USA. Good luck harassing them with a deer rifle..lol… yeah you have to admist those asians are some crazy ass mofos. At least they have some conviction. They dont take being pushed around as easily as i remember 20 years ago. You know the more i think about it all started since the first wave of Vietnamese back in 1975. Those Vietnamese man that country has never lost a war. We actually went over there with our overwhelming numbers and got our asses kicked. That is pretty sad. Its only logical one asian would take down 8 white guys. Maybe we should all think first before we decide to mess with the next seeminly harmless asian guy. I know i will…god bless
December 2nd, 2004 at 9:21 am
And sally what you wrote doesnt clear up anything. You cut and pasted textbook. There is nothing new there. This trial will be based on alot of debate, showmanship, persuasian by lawyers and credibility. Sally you try to sound alot smarter then i beleive you are. Are you related to those stupid hicks who get there sh*t all shot to hell for being stupid red neck hicks? Well maybe next time you and your kin will think twice before harrassing lost hunters.
December 2nd, 2004 at 3:59 pm
Forget a fair trial…OJ had a fair trial. Looks like both sides will be well represented and the sytem is set up so everyone will receive a fair trial(makes one wander what happenned to the OJ case). OK, let’s hope for a fair trial and the truths. The truth as to who fire the first shot…’cause that seem to be the life or death question and as of today, fingers are pointing in both directions. The sad truth that worries me is the answer may not be found, no one will admit and the wrong man/men have to live with that truth for the rest of his/their live as a free man.
Hypotically, if the hunting party did fire the first shot, the 2 survivors would be walking free in their tightly knicked community knowing that they caused the death of 6 of their friends and sent a father(Mr. Vang) of 6 children to prison for life.
On the other hand, if Mr. Vang fired first and for some Johny Crockrin reason he got off free… OJ is today a no body, will get what he deserves.
My personal opinion…(like who cares!!). Mr. Vang endured 25 yrs of racial name calling, discriminations(all forms) and one more would not make a different. So it’s MY OPINION that he was first shot at, being a warning shot or not.
The right thing to do now is for the two survivors to come clean and fess up to taking the first shot and suffer the consequences. Because it would be a big and horrible burden to go thru life with that on one’s mind and shoulder. Mr. Vang will be punish for the other deaths. He will have a hard time explaning self defense for all of the deaths.
In any case, let’s hope for the truths to come out so future occurence can be prevented(if possible), because one life lost is already too many. “Do onto others as you want them to do onto you.”
December 2nd, 2004 at 4:04 pm
Being shot at first would be justifiable as self defense if he hadn’t hunted the others down and shot them in the back while they were unarmed.
December 2nd, 2004 at 4:29 pm
This whole tragedy sounds simular to a movie I watched about a decade ago. It’s called Rambo Part 1. A soldier who is minding his own business and enters into a town who doesn’t want him there. Pushed to his limits he defends himself and proves that they shouldn’t have messed with him in the first place. Case closed…
December 2nd, 2004 at 4:38 pm
SayUncle, I agree with you based on all informations provided thru the media. Too many have died and someone have to suffer the consequences. It is in my opion that Mr. Vang and Mr. Willers be the ones. This would be in my judgement the best answer to this tragedy. It would simmer down both sides, but I fear this will not be the case and colors will remain.
December 2nd, 2004 at 7:25 pm
I would not comment on his but I must.
I’ve hunted all my life in Wisc, I also
had been lost. I never have climbed into
a stand that I did not place. I know when
I got lost I always kept walking trying to
find my way out.
Not decide to climb into a stand, sit till
dark, possibally take a deer and then try to
find my way out. He knew he was not suppose
to be there. Landowners pay several thousands
of dollars in taxes to have private property.
Do you think this was the first time he trespassed ?
Also I’d like to make a comment to the racist person,
that’s calling whites racist.
I am white I also hunt for food and eat everything I
kill and so do many many other white people. Remember
one thing you are a product of you surroundings.