A jury was chosen in this liberal bastion on Thursday for the trial of a Hmong immigrant charged with killing six hunters, causing consternation in the North Woods, where the shootings took place.Would it be fairer to have this trial in a place where jurors had pre-existing ideas about the "culture" and "etiquette of hunting"? If understanding the hunting milieu is relevant, can't the prosecutor prove it? Or is the concern that the people of Madison will not understand the victims' behavior and will be unusually sympathetic to the racism theme in the defendant's argument that he felt threatened?
Some residents of Rice Lake, where all the victims lived or grew up, said they were concerned that the jurors from Dane County, which encompasses Madison, might not grasp the nuances of rural life.
"They are not as rural, and their culture and their lifestyle is quite different from ours up here in the north," said Renee Gralewicz, an ethnic studies instructor at the Rice Lake campus of the University of Wisconsin. "So we might have some people who really don't understand the culture of hunting and the etiquette and the ethics and how all of that plays out on the jury."
Judge Norman L. Yackel of Sawyer County Circuit Court ruled in June that the jury for the trial of the immigrant, Chai Soua Vang, would be chosen from Dane County after the defense argued that publicity and strong emotions in the Rice Lake area jeopardized Mr. Vang's chances for a fair trial.
The concern about the composition of the jury stems in part from the racial overtones of the case. Mr. Vang, 36, a refugee from Laos who lived in St. Paul, Minn., told police that he had been sitting in a tree stand on private hunting land about 25 miles northeast of Rice Lake one Sunday last November when the hunters, who were white, swore at him and used ethnic slurs.
Mr. Vang said he shot at the hunters after someone shot at him first.
"The rest of the group scramble for something at the ATV so I shot them at the ATV and ran toward them because I thought that they will get something a gun to shoot me," Mr. Vang wrote in a letter from jail to a reporter for The Chicago Tribune. The letter has been admitted as evidence in the case. "I feel that this incident is happen because people are not able to treated others with respect like they want to be treated and hatred toward other people or race."
One survivor told the police that Mr. Vang fired first.
Hmong hunters have complained of harassment from white hunters, some of whom point to a different hunting culture as the root of the problem. Many residents in Rice Lake, which is 230 miles northwest of Madison and has a population of 8,300, dispute the claim that racial tensions have been high in the area.
September 9, 2005
A murder trial in Madison: will the jurors understand the "culture" and "etiquette" of hunting?
The NYT reports on a murder trial in what it calls "this liberal bastion," my city of Madison, Wisconsin. Why does the NYT care about a murder trial and what is the significance of the liberal politics in the location of the courthouse? The accused is a Hmong immigrant and the killings took place in the context of hunting:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
Classic journalist coyness on the part of the NYT: stating the bare facts of an event and not explaining the motives of the actors. Yes, what do they mean about the culture of hunting? Do they mean that if a lone hunter makes a mistake in etiquette he becomes fair game for other hunters? Do they mean that if you come upon six creeps in Farm 'n Fleet camouflage outfits you'd better let them do or say anything they please? The Times is too tactful to say.
I suspect that the Rice Lake residents fear that a Madison jury will think that: (i) it is okay to shoot people who make racist remarks (although that isn't, actually, the proper rule), (ii) the dead were the kind of scum who go hunting, hence no great loss and (iii) the dead, being the kind of redneck scum who go hunting, probably did make racist remarks. Whether a Madison jury will in fact behave that way, I have no idea; stereotyping runs both (or all) ways in this country.
Sebastian: I'd have to check back to the older reports, but I believe it has something to do with Vang putting up a tree stand on private land and the victims' objection to that method of hunting.
I think that the Rice Lake people fear that those who do not hunt will not understand how taboo it is to fire a gun at a human. All gun safety courses emphasize to even raise an unloaded gun and point it at someone is absolutely wrong. The Rice Lake jury is going to discount claims that the 6 hunters fired first much more heavily than a Madison jury. If the shot was accidentally discharged or not fired at the guy in the tree, then his claims of self-defense rest upon the reasonableness of him believing that he was in danger. The Rice Lake jury may even concede for the sake of argument that the 6 hunters fired first and still convict. The Madison jury may conclude that one shot fired is enough to justify an overwhelming response.
I wonder why wearing camouflage makes one a creep, or why hunting makes one a creep?
Mary: Actually, on the basis of what little I know at this point, I'd vote to convict, preferably on a charge less than first degree murder. He killed six people, and his life was probably not under direct attack at the time. Nevertheless, that's not a reason to assume that the dead men were angels. Obviously Vang was sorely provoked.
As for planting theories, here's one: Six white hunters come upon an Asian hunter who is either knowingly or unknowingly trespassing on private land. They tell him to move, etc., and he refuses. Each party thinks the other is arrogant and obnoxious. The six white hunters decide to press the issue -- after all, there are six of them and one gook. They start pushing their weight around, throwing ethnnic slurs, etc. They have "the rules" on their side -- the #1 pretext for bullying in Wisconsin and many other civilized places. Lo and behold, bullying doesn't work this time -- the gook has a short trigger finger. Another lesson forgotten from Vietnam.
They didn't deserve to be killed, and Vang should have gotten off the private land, but to turn that into an argument for white people's not being racist is ludicrous. Being black in Madison, no less northern Wi., gets you routinely stared at, and if you're shopping in a store it gets you put under surveillance, and if you're a black male high school student in Madison it gets you put in the basement classsrooms. The idea that a mixture of Scandinavians, Germans, and other white Europeans makes you diverse is laughable in the 21st century.
Goesh: I'm a human, so being a hunter doesn't make someone a creep to me, but it makes him a creep to the deer.
Most humans accept their canine teeth for what they are and I don't have a problem with others doing the killing to provide meat for grocery stores and restaurants. I think only a racist would assume that caucasion hunters would automatically start calling one of Asian descent a gook upon being in disagreement with said person.
Mary, Goesh: You make good points about hunting, which is why I'm not against hunting. Don't assume things about me based on what kind of person you think I am.
Nevertheless, a deer is not going to think, "Oh, this is a beneficial culling of the herd" as it goes down.
As for race, people aren't either racist or nonracist, and racism isn't only a matter of animosity. The claim "I am not a racist" is always suspect even when it is made with good intentions. It's a claim I would never make.
Gotta go to the gym and work off some aggression before I plug some WASPS!
Your point is well taken about the deer, Mr. Cohen. I confess to slaying and eating squirrels on occasion. For every one I drop, there are probably 5-6 shots not taken for fear of only wounding the the little fellow/gal(s). There are hunters who are not of this 'culture', unfortunately. On the other hand, I know one fellow who goes deer hunting every year and has never shot his rifle despite having the chance to bag a deer. He likes the ritual associated with it and the camping out and simply playing the part of it. My brother, a stout and brave fellow, upon dropping his first deer cried and sold his rifle. He has however killed and eaten hundreds of ducks. We humans are an odd bunch.
It's hard to see anything less than immediate threat to life justifying the killing of 6 people, but they man still deserves a fair trial.
There are two challenges here in finding an objective jury of peers. You need a group of people who don't have stongly held prejudices against 1) hunting, and 2) Hmong (or other Asian) immigrants. I agree with the defense that you won't find an objective jury anywhere near Rice Lake. Perhaps it should be in a moerately-sized near-rural area that understands hunting culture, with the lawyers checking prospective jurors for attitudes towards Asian immigrants.
What makes hunters creepy is not that they kill animals, but that they enjoy doing it. I eat meat, and I don't have any problem with the ranchers or slaughterhouse employees who make a living killing animals to provide it. But for someone who doesn't need the food to get up before dawn and stand in a blind all day on the off chance he might be able to kill something, just for fun, does strike me as a bit weird.
I don't really see that hunting per se has much relevance in this case, though. The crux will be whether the defendant can make the jury buy his rather implausible claim of self-defense (one generally runs away from a threat, not toward it.) Nor does it matter if the victims were racists...one has as much to be a racist, and to act within the law on racist beliefs, as one has to be a Presbyterian.
Is Mr. Cohen saying above what he seems to be saying, that ethnic slurs are sufficient provocation such that killing a person who makes such remarks, and a number of his or her compansions, is not first degree murder? That is hardly the law, nor should it be.
Sean: No. What mitigates it in my view is that it was six armed people against one armed person. Which makes it highly unlikely in my opinion that the one person attacked the six without strong provocation. Unless Vang went crazy and killed six people for no reason -- which is possible but far from proven.
I want to repeat that in my view this is only mitigation and not exoneration. And of course we will never know all the facts because the witnesses are all dead.
Smilin' Jack: "...one generally runs away from a threat, not toward it." Unfortunately, the victims were counting on Vang to be that sensible. It's like expecting the oncoming traffic to slow down when one makes a risky left turn. Vang sped up.
Mary: Even if everyone in Wisconsin is that good a shot, what about all those Illini who drive up in their Land Rovers every November? Half the time it's all they can do to keep from shooting themselves by accident.
RLC: Hmong are not "gooks," per se. The preferred racially insensitive term for Hmong is "mung" or the more general "slope."
"Gooks" are the Vietnamese that fought against Americans.
Richard,
Was your second post (10:58) meant to sound so racist? Why do you assume the dead people were bullies, that they saw the defendant as a gook, that they sorely provoked him and threw racial slurs around? If he was provoked, why must it have been racial? Can't white people be jerks without being racist?
Why do you assume that the defendant, as a "gook," has a "short triger finger" (whatever that means) and what does that have to do with Vietnamese? As a Laotian, is he lumped in with the Vietnamese because he's from southeast Asia and all those people must be like the VC?
And are black students really put in basements in Madison simply because they are black? How does the school get away with segregating the classes and giving better rooms to whites?
From tcd....
"I don't buy that Mr. Vang shot 6 people in self defense. Does anyone believe that if all 6 people were acting aggressively towards Mr. Vang that he would come out unscathed and all 6 ended up dead?"
Sure, I do. I'm very familiar with that area and the people that live there, and I have no problem believing that one of the hunters pointed a loaded weapon at Mr Vang as he walked away, as racial tensions are high in that region.
"He shot people in the back for God's sake; what does that say to you? To me, it says they were running away from him at which point he should have just packed up and gotten off of private land that he was trespassing."
It could equally say that they were running for weapons to use on Mr. Vang. You can't wait until they are firing on you, because then it is 5-on-1 and Mr. Vang would be dead.
"The whole incident may have started out as self-defense on Mr. Vang's part but once he shot dead 6 people, Mr. Vang was trying to get rid of witnesses."
You don't know that, and that's the crux of this case: reasonable doubt. Were I on this jury, I could probably believe either side, but not enough to convict. Classic case of Presumed Innocent.
Go back a few days to the thread on the white toursits evacuated from the Superdome. Much of the discussion had to do with perceived versus real threats.
Would you feel differently if a white person in the Superdome had killed six black people, claiming self-defense? And would there be cultural differences that would require a certain jury makeup or a culturally different location for a fair trial?
Let's assume they were racists. So what?
If you say, "Get off my land, you gook" does that mitigate the murder? If a white guy says to another white guy, "Get off my land, you cracker" would that also mitigate the circumstances? No.
Here in the Twin Cities, the media is following this case closely. Tonight (Thursday, Sept. 15) a report from the trial led the 9:00 news -- then they went on to coverage of the President's speech.
The defendant testified today (Sept. 15). By the looks of the clips they showed on TV, I think he hurt his case. He (and his legal team) are sticking with a self-defense argument. The coroners' reports (yes, there were two coroners testifying) were fairly damning.
On the stand, the defendant was rather animated, while saying things like "I started chasing so and so." I'm not sure how that came across to the jury, but I'm sure his lawyers went nuts during the cross examination. The prosecutor managed to get Vang to talk about which of the victims deserved to die. She was leading him -- "name of victim, did he deserve to die?" -- and he answered with strong affirmatives.
In such a situation, I'm sure I would have had the sense to say that no one deserved to die, that it was all an unfortunate event. What is that ability? I'll call it cultural fluency for lack of a better term. It's something about knowing what your target audience wants from you. Sort of like what John Roberts has in spades.
NOTE: I am not making excuses for the defendant. Just trying to show how I saw the prosecutor doing her job, based on just a few video clips. And why I think the jury will find him guilty.
So I'm left wondering if the prosecutor took advantage of the defendant's lack of cultural fluency. Here she was, the prosecutor, asking him questions. He must have assumed it was his job to answer all of them, as vigorously as he could. He seemed to have no idea how these answers might be viewed by the jury.
And I'll bet, because of language and cultural barriers, Vang's lawyers were unable to coach him about how to answer the prosecutor's questions, and especially, when and how to give non-answers.
Question for you lawyers: once the cross examination starts, the defendant's lawyers can't step in or call for a break, can they? I assume that they are limited to objections -- directed solely to the judge -- but perhaps a defendant aware of the system would take that as a clue to be more careful.
Post a Comment