Like too many folks following the incident of the Wisconsin hunters’ deaths in November, it seems Jamie Shookman has reached a premature conclusion in her Nov. 29 column about the legal aspects of the case. In her language and her assumptions about our criminal justice system, she sadly joins what appears to be a vast majority of people who are staying with their (understandable) emotional reactions to this tragedy, rather than allowing the truth to unfold and/or prevail. It is ironic that Ms. Shookman’s majors are English and political science.

With language like, “senseless, gruesome rampage,” “Vang’s actions are as — if not more — appalling than (Jeffrey) Dahmer’s,” “Vang’s murders were committed randomly against a group of unarmed men,” “deer hunting is a Wisconsin tradition that has never witnessed a massacre like it observed last week,” Ms. Shookman has played prosecutor, judge and jury even before any charges had been filed.

To be more accurate: there are two eyewitness accounts of what happened in this incident. To conclude that only one of those accounts represents the truth is irresponsible. To represent only one of those accounts — as too many citizens and the media seem to have also prematurely concluded — is to ignore the way our criminal justice system operates. Indeed, the inferences of Mr. Vang’s guilt-before-proven anything also deny the way our democracy operates.

Ms. Shookman, joined by so many emotionally charged people reacting to this tragedy, has Mr. Vang in prison for life. And yet, Mr. Vang has not been found guilty of any crime.

As the details become clear, it will be important for all parties involved in this case — and for any citizens who care about justice — to seek accurate answers, rather than coming to premature conclusions. For instance, the media has only offered references about Mr. Vang’s run-ins with St. Paul, Minn., police in a couple of domestic disturbance calls, from which no charges were filed. With these references, they begin a negative public profile of Mr. Vang.

But what if the eyewitness account of Mr. Vang is true? What if the hunters he encountered cornered him and verbally assaulted him with racial epithets and fired a shot at him first? And, unlike Mr. Vang, what if any of them have shown a propensity for aggressive and/or violent behavior, with past convictions of civil and/or criminal charges? None of those scenarios could ever justify the deaths of the hunters. That is, absolutely, the horror and the tragedy of this incident.

However, a different scenario than the one being played out in the media’s, and, apparently Ms. Shookman’s, minds would suggest a very different outcome.

Finally, it’s the specter of comparisons between Mr. Vang and Jeffrey Dahmer that are most troubling about Ms. Shookman’s piece. A reasoned look at the two different cases would clearly show that there are virtually no similarities between the two.

Let’s hope that our justice system works the way it is supposed to in the case of Mr. Vang and that his verdict and (potential) sentence are not dependent solely on public opinion.

Michael Maguire ([email protected]) is an associate lecturer (part-time) in the School of Human Ecology.