[muawiyah]

You should read the man's confession. He says he was shot at. That's the reason he shot back.

The name-calling part is just part of the color ~

More interesting is the fact that his confession coincides very well with the preliminary forensic analysis of the crime-scene. Let's see if the other witnesses do as well ~ particularly when it comes to the part about who had what guns. Lord forbid some doggone fool went out there and gathered up (or stole) rifles from the dead people.

[murdocj]

Lord forbid some doggone fool went out there and gathered up (or stole) rifles from the dead people.

This occurred to me initially, as well. But Vang's statement doesn't indicate that there was more than one other weapon initially.

Regardless of what happened, chasing down fleeing targets and returning to the scene to shoot more people isn't going to go over well even if he was truly antagonized and shot at first and felt the need to defend himself.

[Petruchio]

You should read the man's confession. He says he was shot at. That's the reason he shot back.

The name-calling part is just part of the color ~

More interesting is the fact that his confession coincides very well with the preliminary forensic analysis of the crime-scene. Let's see if the other witnesses do as well ~ particularly when it comes to the part about who had what guns.

According to Lauren Hesebeck, the only one who had a rifle was Terry Willers. Hesebeck claims that Vang fired first after removing the scope, and Terry Willers returned fire before being hit in the neck. Terry's shot missed and hit the ground about 40 feet behind Vang. (found on page 3)