Supposedly, there was only one gun among the hunting party (they weren't actually hunting at the time). So, even if his story were true, what's his excuse for continue to shoot people after the one with the gun went down?
I was thinking earlier that we are so quick to judgement on this poacher based on the media reports. What if he was shot at or threatend by a gun first. Self defense is justified. (Even if you are on someone else's private property out in the woods??) But if only one of the hunters had a gun - self defense is unlikely - unless he got "buck fever". I think one of the ladies (one lady?) was shot from behind.
Did this Vang guy ever play for the NBA Pistons?
His lawyer got to him...." Answer NO questions. Scream RACISM and SELF-DEFENSE...." OJ did it, you can too...
Is it credible to believe that a group of hunters went to confront Vang with only one gun?