September 20, 2005
Chai Vang And The Hate Crime Self-Defense
Claim
By Bryanna Bevens
What is up with liberals?
Seriously, reconcile this if you
can: Most liberals think
abortion should be legal but racism should not.
Hmm…
This means a woman can choose
to end the life of her unborn child but she can’t
choose to dislike people.
Is there a moral differential?
Yes! Disliking people would be
offensive.
It’s like the stories I’m hearing
from
Iraq of soldiers being reprimanded for using
derogatory language when speaking of the enemy.
Apparently, a soldier may not refer
to an Arab man as a camel jockey (for example) because
it’s considered offensive.
Now, running that Arab man over
with a tank is apparently not offensive…so no
restrictions there.
(By the way, these are abstract
examples—not meant to imply my advocacy for either side
of these issues.)
When did one’s opinion—simple,
spoken words—become a matter of legal concern?
How can a man’s opinion be
considered a
mitigating factor in say, a murder case?
Last year, Hmong immigrant
Chai Soua Vang shot eight people in Wisconsin
killing six of them and seriously wounding two.
On Friday, Vang was
found guilty of six counts of first degree murder.
The state of Wisconsin does not have the
death penalty, but first degree murder does carry a
sentence of life in prison without parole.
The details of this trial received
a
ton of coverage in the
Wisconsin media—but were not much reported, as far
as I can see, in the national press.
From the time of his arrest, Vang
has maintained his actions were in self-defense.
According to Vang, the eight victims surrounded him and
called him racially offensive names.
He also claimed that one or more of
the victims raised their rifles as though to shoot him.
So Vang killed all of them.
As it turned out, only one of his
victims was armed. And four of the six were shot in the
back…after he chased them down.
At first, I was surprised by the
self-defense argument. I thought Vang would go with an
insanity plea.
In a case like this, who wouldn’t?
Heck, I think he would have stood a
better chance for an acquittal had he gone with an
old-fashioned "wudn’t me" defense.
But when I considered the climate
today, and the
anti-racism hysteria that has gripped America by the
borders, I realized that Vang might be on to something.
As far as criminal proceedings are
concerned, there are two issues here:
- The presence of provocation
and;
- The relevance of racism
According to Barry Feld, a law
professor at the University of Wisconsin
"If
they [the defense] can establish the presence of
provocation, it's considered a mitigating factor that
could reduce murder to manslaughter"
Self-defense a tough sell in Vang case, law experts say
Remember, it would be his word
against theirs and dead men tell no tales…Vang clearly
had a bit of an advantage.
And, thanks to federal hate crime
laws, racism is a mitigating factor.
The law provides a
sentencing enhancement for criminals found guilty of
a racially motivated crime—their punishment can actually
double.
But the assumption that any U.S.
judge has the power to punish a man for his thoughts is
appalling. And the theory that
fear of incarceration will suddenly make a man
embrace minorities is patently absurd.
But this is the current state of
American jurisprudence.
For that reason, it is not wholly
unrealistic to think a judge would accept the
self-defense argument by simply extending the scope of
hate crime jurisdiction.
If a judge can punish a man for
hating another, can not the hated punish the man as
well?
Vang thought so…and so did his
family and friends.
During his testimony,
Vang claimed that one of the victims called him a
"gook" and a "chink". He said he left the
area and returned moments later because somebody fired a
shot at him.
According to Vang’s sister, Chou
Vang, the all-white jury was to blame as well.
"Everyone was white. They do not understand. They will
never understand what my brother went through out
there," she said. "He was not a dog to sit there and let
them shoot at him. He was proud of who he is." [Jury
finds Vang guilty of killing deer hunters ROBERT
IMRIE Associated Press, Sep. 16, 2005]
I find it difficult to imagine
anyone being proud of themselves after killing six
people let alone following a cold-blooded
killing spree, even in self-defense.
Vang’s mother also chimed in with
words of blame—for the American victims:
"All of
this could have been prevented if we could just learn to
respect each other. Please, I beg you, remember my
words," Sao Hang said. [Vang's
mom: 'Learn to respect each other' By Todd
Richmond Associated Press September 16, 2005]
No, Mrs. Hang. The only
person who could have prevented this slaughter was
your son.
I can’t imagine how difficult it
must have been for the victims’ families to fend off
accusations of racism while grappling with their grief.
Vang was not acquitted and will
face severe consequences. But life in prison
hardly seems enough.
And this type of "racist!"
defense is just one of many signs of more to come.
As I have mentioned
before, justice is no longer blind and
equality before the law has been replaced by
preferential treatment.
I hope the liberal design to stomp
out racism was worth this price—especially as they will
fail to achieve their objective. If anything, they will
make things worse.
Final thought:
"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most
dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American
act that could most easily defeat us."—
William O. Douglas, Supreme
Court Justice.
Bryanna Bevens [email
her] is a political consultant and former chief of staff
for a member of the California State Assembly.
