Thank you for your editorial. Although there is no excusing what Vang did, there WERE two sides of the story. One side is not more credible just because six of their people died. Irrational and emotional reactions to the killings without any critical analysis may lead to the persecution of not just Vang, but the Hmong people in general.

Fair enough. There ARE two sides to the story, and it's not really fair to judge Vang guilty without hearing his side and examining the evidence. But my kneejerk reaction is that anyone, no matter what his or her race, who shoots and kills six people has committed a vile crime, particularly when trespassing on private property.

Let's not forget that Vang shot FOUR people in the BACK...and the youngest hunter was shot in the back FOUR times...and when a wounded hunter stood up, Vang declared, "You're not dead yet?" and then shot him again. This is part of Vang's own testimony. Self defense? I don't think so. Any sane person would have run away rather than chasing down and shooting unarmed hunters. Get the facts straight, people. Self defense? I don't think so. He probably was provoked, but that is no excuse.

No. 2.
You just said its wrong to jump to conclusions, and then followed up by jumping to a conclusion.
What was the point in your response?

"You just said its wrong to jump to conclusions, and then followed up by jumping to a conclusion.
What was the point in your response?"

I had the same thoughts as the poster you refer to here. To me, it means that we shouldn't pass judgment definitively without having all the facts, but as human beings, it is in our nature to make snap judgments. As such, my own snap judgment was that this guy shot and killed six people, at least four of them in the back, and several multiple times. That suggests to me that he wasn't defending himself, but rather he was trying to kill the other hunters. So while I won't start clamoring for the institution of the death penalty so we can fry the son-of-a-bitch, I also don't feel too badly about hoping he goes to prison for life.

If after all the evidence is made public it turns out that he actually was acting in self-defense, however unlikely that seems now, more power to him. But it doesn't seem likely.

The only conclusion that seems apparent in the editorial is that guilt has not been determined. I don't read any conclusion that Vang is off the hook.

Also, the police report is available for public review. Read it. To completely believe Vang, the hunter's fired at his back. He claims not to have known from whom the shot came. His shooting (according to him) was in panic. He didn't know who else had a gun and from what direction a next shot may have come.

It seems that some people are going to stay with the media's coverage rather than hold out any possibility that a different truth may come to light in court. That's not right.

Vang shot these people. He shouldn't have. But what about the behavior of the hunter's prior to the shooting? I'm glad someone has brought up those questions.

Mr. Maguire raises interesting issues.

The initial Madison newspaper headline "The Slaughter in the Woods" by the Wisconsin State Journal, luckily got tapered down with more astute journalism - in later articles.

Slaughter might imply an even more wretched, and sensational (newsprint-selling crime).

The word slaughter might imply, the equivalent of skinning a deer, or homicide with other weapons, (knives, or hatchets).

Channel 15 on the madison.com website also used in an odd headline, the word "mass killer."

How many is mass, in "Mass Communications" classes? (I would think more than ten.)

Mr. Maguire's commentary is welcome.

It is important to alert fellow readers of oddities in news reports - lest we all continue to get hoodwinked.

In the reporting on this issue, it would be interesting to know exactly where the suspect was raised. Where was schooled? Did he ever participate in clinical medication trials, or specialized national guard training re psyops?

It is important, in this case, to keep an eye on the Circuit Court in Sawyer County (judge and clerk), the State attorney documents, and to scrutinize the work of the defendant's lawyers.

After all, this is a State where we want answers, to prevent stuff like this, not to drum up (merely) support for the death penalty.

It is not impossible the case was at a much deeper level staged, with the hunters and the suspect being mere pawns. It could just be a crime against Wisconsin from the outside.

Yes, we must wait until a trial or more likely plea bargain comes out before we speak conclusively on the issue of culpability.

It's just that when you catch someone red-handed, that process of weighing gets rightfully abbreviated. I've not heard one rationalization that could even plausibly get this guy out of life without parole.

I'd suggest finding another champion to hold up as an example of the dangers of rash judgment in the criminal justice system.

How about this rationalization that could plausibly get this guy out of life without parole: He told the truth! And, preliminary findings are that some of the white hunters have backgrounds of crimes they've committed that involve fighting. Verdicts of 'guilty.' Records.

Doesn't it mean anything if these white guys were racially harassing this guy, dropping the "f-bomb" with racist name-calling, threatening him with his life? Isn't it 'plausible' that these rednecks, just for laughs, fired a shot first - while Chai Vang was trying to leave them?

What about this as a hate crime? Or, attempted murder of Vang, if it was, indeed, the white hunters who fired first?

I agree, too, with the possibility that, because of these potential mitigating factors, this case may be plea-bargained.

No matter which way you look at it, there really is not 'rationalization' for six people dead. But there are possible explanations of how it all came to be. If the only thing we believe is the story of the white guys, we're not giving the truth a fair shake.

Hmmmmm.....Let's see....It's deer hunting season. In northern Wisconsin. Some white hunters come upon a Hmong-American hunter in their tree stand.

They politely ask him to leave. He disagrees. They call their buddies on a walkie-talkie to help.

The Hmong-American pretends to start to walk away, then, opens fire on the helpless hunters.

Please, someone, help me! Doesn't this just sound strange to you?

To me, Vang's account is just so much more credible.

If you've ever been in the northwoods region of the state, then you know that, true to their stereotype, these people are bonkers about their deer. They talk about the hunting season as if it's a religious experience. Factories shut down. Sick days are commonplace. Believe it or not, there are some schools that close. The only thing worse is snowmobile season!

I'm not trying to be trite about this. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that the cowboy-type white hunters have criminal records - probably for brawling at a bar somewhere up in the hinterlands.

And, God help you if you're not one of them. This guy Vang doesn't have a chance - even if the criminal justice system does work. He's got a whole region full of yahoos against him.

Again, true to their stereotype, this is a geographic area that's a throwback to the KKK era. They're still using racist language as a part of their daily lexicon.

You think white arresting officers, a white DA, and a white jury from Sawyer County could ever give this guy Vang a chance to experience justice?

These people wouldn't know the US Constitution if it hit them in the head.