[geopyg]

"Chai Vang claimed he acted in self-defense after they shouted racial epithets, cursed at him and one fired a shot in his direction. The former truck driver is serving multiple life terms."

I love this little part to make it sound like the Chai thing (and implicating this latest case) is all because of racism by the whites. Obviously the jurors didn't think that was the case, or he wouldn't be serving multiple life terms.

And there very well may be a "cultural" misunderstanding aspect to this latest case as well. Things such as private property, game limits, hunting seasons, etc.

[khnyny]

IIRC, Chang shot a couple of the "racist" hunters in the back...

Not exactly "self-defense".

[SJackson]

Threads on the Vang incident. The liklihood that Chai Vang acted in self-defense is zero.

And there very well may be a "cultural" misunderstanding aspect to this latest case as well. Things such as private property, game limits, hunting seasons, etc.

He was hunting on public land. In all liklihood there's a victim and a murderer.

[Verloona Ti]

I like the implication that it's OK to kill white people if they use "racial epithets". This is by no means the only instance in which I've heard that defense ; I believe that in pretty much every case I've read about in which the assailant is black and the victim white, the claim is made that the victim used a "racial slur". Which of course meant s/he deserved to be beaten to a pulp. I believe in all or most of these cases the claims are lies, but does suggest that some really believe that insulting words from white people gives them a perfect, legal right to respond with violence or even (attempted) homicide. (Now that I think of it, a later report on the Long Beach assault suggested the horrific mob attack was preceded by one of the girls using a racial slur. Apparently this justifies breaking facial bones and partially blinding a person.)