Stones Cry Out

I don't think everyone believes the 'racial slurs' part of the story. Initially, there was no explaination for the shooting. It was only after the lawyers got involved that the 'race card' came into play. It's not very believable that everyone that came onto the scene - unarmed and observing victims everywhere - would immediately began shouting racial slurs. This guy is a cold-blooded killer, regardless of minority status.

"He explained that the hunters were attacking him with racial slurs and didn't seem to understand that racial slur isn't something worthy of lethal self defense. Thankfully, the jury agreed."
OTOH:
Given the state of PC Hate Speech rules today, one could almost sound reasonable explaining how he was propagandized into believing precisely that.
Thus HE is a victim here.

Do racists deserve to die? no.
Does making a racist remark make a person a racist? maybe
Is Vang guilty? yes.

But a minority would understand the motivation behind Vang and why he shot these people. If you've ever been on the receiving end of racial slurs, I think you understand the unactable desire of killing those bigots. Vang simply acted on it.

Not saying he is a hero, but I understand him while the above people apparently don't.

Assuming that there were racial slurs coming from all or some of the victims, one doesn't have to be a certain minority to understand hate speech. People find all kinds of ways to say hateful things. As a woman (and one with relatively dark coloring), I've heard my share of ignorant things - and even if I hadn't, I understand anger and I understand offense and hurt. Though, I don't understand wishing to kill others because of that kind of hurt.

In either case, I thank you for proving my exact point which is that even a fellow minority who empathizes with Vang's motivation says he is guilty. This is exactly what the people on the steet implied would not have happened if people such as yourself were on the jury.

Like Doug above (I assume it's Doug from Bogus Gold), I have been a bit closer to this case, only because it is a big story here in the Twin Cities. Here is why Vang is guilty. First, two of his victims were shot in the back. Say what you want, you don't get a self-defense verdict from any jury when you shoot your victims in the back. Did I mention that he had to track those two victims down? Again, no chance of self-defense there. Second, he was read the name of each victim when he was cross-examined. He was asked, as each name was read, if the person "deserved to die." He answered "yes" three times. No jury, regardless of the composition, woudl fail to return first-degree murder with those answer. Just as damning, of course, is that means that Vang does not believe that three of his victims deserved to die. Does that mean that those three were not in self-defense? Sadly, this was a very easy case for the jury. Those who are trying to make it something else are fooling themselves and trying to fool others. Vang condemned himself with his own words. No other words are necessary.