Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Argue -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (408)	11/24/2004 11:55:05 PM
From: Graystone	Respond to of 415

Dis credits or What I have seen. The story is shocking. The reaction of my fellow SI members was far more shocking. Did you see that two Mexican police officer were killed by a mob today, burned alive, they were mistaken for kidnappers. In the article I read they mention another Mexican mob that threatened to beat a man to death for stealing a guitar, luckily the police rescued him. You're right of course, it isn't about the hunters, it is about the fact that the shooter is being tried and found guilty by the mob long before the facts are clear. I will set up the hypothetical situation you envision and test it against first hand accounts. The trespasser broke and began shooting to kill at the group who had asked him to leave. There are first hand accounts from survivors that echo this same scenario. All accounts seems to agree that Vang got down from the tree, walked away and at some point afterwards the the fighting broke out. I read an account that said that Vang stopped, removed the scope from his rifle, which does not seem to be an offensive action in and of itself but then he turned and opened fire. <<Hesebeck's version, contained in the same probable cause statement, makes no mention of that type of language or verbal hostility, other than saying Vang used profanity at one point. Hesebeck, who was released from a hospital Tuesday after treatment for a shoulder wound, told investigators Willers shot at Vang after Vang fired first but missed.>> Hesbeck's version has Willers shooting at Vang after Vang fired first and missed, so it is clear that even the survivors agree Vang was fired at by Willers at some point. This information disturbs me greatly and leaves several unanswered questions in my mind. How did an Army trained sharpshooter who had just broken and decided to kill a bunch of people shoot at an unsuspecting target just 100 feet away and miss ? How did Willers have time to raise his rifle, take off the safety, aim and return a shot at Vang if Vang had already, according to Hesebeck's account, shifted his weapon over for close work and was in fact was shooting from just a hundred feet away ? Hesebeck goes on to state that he too tried to shoot Vang but was unsure of how many shots he fired. I am assuming he took up Willers dropped weapon and began returning fire. As I said last night, this seems to make it a war zone. I am not a soldier and have never been under fire. Once it became a war zone I am not sure what rules would apply. Which goes right back to the first question, why did Vang start shooting ? I use logic all the time, as Popper said it is the organon of criticisms. I can clear up the inconsistencies I see in Hesebeck's account with a single shot, does that shot make sense, not a bloody chance, unless you are the target. madison.com