Go here, watch the video and read the writing to get some background information:
http://www.newson6.com/story/14211098/vinita-man-beaten-after-accidentally-killing-dog?redirected=true

     Monday, May 9th, 2011 will mark the 2nd month since Osborne's violent beating of Yang occurred on March 9, 2011.  To this date there exists no news about him being charged with aggravated assault or not.  If charged with aggravated assault, Osborne can receive a term in prison since such action falls under a felony crime.  If you watched the video or read the article, shouldn't this case have been solved already with Osborne charged with aggravated assault?  I say what the heck is taking so long?
    
     It is clear that Osborne attacked Yang with disregard for his life or humanity.  Osborne claims self-defense.  What is self-defense? Beating a man half your size almost to death only when he apologized and even offered to pay for the dog.  Even without offering to pay for the dog, no justification exists for Osborne's behavior towards Yang.  Osborne nearly killed Yang who needed a facial reconstruction after the incidence.  Maybe if Osborne just hit Yang once it could be justifiable, but obviously Osborne hit him repeatedly in the face and kicked him in the ribs breaking two ribs.  How can he even claim self-defense?

     People can argue that it was Yang's fault and he deserved it because he ran over the dog.  I say, no matter how expensive the dog, a dog's life can not amount to that of a human being's life.  Also, the road does not belong to Osborne so Yang did not trespassed onto private property and run over his dog.  The dogs chased after his car while he was driving passed the house and then he accidentally ran over the dog.  First of all, an owner should not let his/her dogs run loose unless in the owner's yard.  Second of all, the fault should not be on Yang but on the dog for running towards the car while it was moving.  For example, if you as a driver was driving on the road and somebody decides to jump out into your pathway causing you to run over the individual, does that put you at fault?  Not only so, what do you expect Yang to do?  Just stop? The dogs won't go away.  Get out and move the dogs?  Yang will likely be attacked by them.
    
     In the case of Chai Vang, his trial in court only lasted a week.  In this case, the law is trying to do everything to protect the white man as long as it can.  Even the sheriff department decline to file any charges against Osborne and handed the case to someone else.  In addition to this, the sheriff department might even charge Yang with reckless driving which it definitely not.  I might sound like a racist, but I am not.  I am just pointing out the facts.  Like Yang himself said, if the story was turned around and Yang instead recklessly inflicted as much injury to Osborne, Yang would be charged with felony and incarcerated already; even if Yang was half the size of Osborne.  Somehow others tried to also justify Osborne's action arguing he attacked Yang only out of a "heated moment" because his dog died.
    
     Overall, what message does this case send out to the public?  It says the law won't protect you if someone beats you up because they feel like it.  A more specific message it sends out to minority groups is the law does not really care for you.  I don't hate Osborne, I just dislike his abhor beating of Yang.  No human being should have to experience what Yang experience regardless of any animal being harmed.

He deserves more!

          The nurses treated James Nichols’ knuckles in the emergency room due to injuries that incurred to him while he hunted in the Peshtigo Harbor Wildlife Area in Wisconsin.  Just a couple hours earlier Chong Yang, Choua Lee and Pau Vang reported a missing hunter in the same area Nichols hunted.  It became increasingly apparent Nichols was involved with the missing hunter as police interrogated him in the hospital.  To sum up the incidence, hunter Cha Vang and James Nichols confronted one another in the woods while hunting.  According to Nichols, he told Vang to go away because he was already hunting there when Vang intruded his area.  Vang then shot at him and the bullet swiped his right knuckle.  Nichols laughed at Vang and then charged at Vang.  Vang shot again and punctured Nichols hand.  Before Vang shot the third time, Nichols approached Vang and they started wrestling until Nichols stabbed Vang in the neck six times and buried him beneath some leaves in attempt to conceal Vang’s body only to be discovered later and linked to Nichols in the emergency room.

               
          After trial, the court found Nichols guilty of second-degree intentional homicide, hiding a corpse and felon in possession of a firearm.  However, they only sentenced him to sixty-nine (69) years in prison instead of first-degree intentional homicide which would impose a lifetime sentence.  Why?  According to Wisconsin,

Premeditated murder, murder with malice and aforethought, and wanton or depraved heart murder are common law terms equivalent to Wisconsin's first degree intentional homicide statute. Premeditated murder is murder with malice and aforethoght; malice is an intent to kill, and aforethought is the deliberation upon that intent. Deliberation only requires a second thought, a momentary reconsideration. 

Second degree intentional homicide is, in essence, common law manslaughter….If the state prosecution either fails to prove or concedes that it cannot prove that mitigating circumstances did not exist, then the charge is mitigated from first degree intentional homicide to second degree intentional homicide.  (Van Wagner and Wood)

The reason Nichols received second-degree intentional homicide comes from the point that the prosecution failed to “prove that mitigating circumstances did not exist.”

               
          Nichols was cross-examined and found to be lying to investigators with his story about the shooting incidence.  Nichols told multiple stories and even said, “The Hmong people are ‘mean,’ they ‘kill everything’ and ‘go for anything that moves.’” (haseaac.inofrme.com)  His co-worker even testified that Nichols said he would kill a Hmong person if he ever had a chance.  Nichols also testified that he never goes hunting at the Peshtigo Wildlife Area anymore because of the Hmong people who hunts there.  Not only so, Nichols have a record of burglary and other convictions.

               
          What the heck!  So how hard was it to believe that mitigating circumstances, such as self-defense, did not exist for Nichols?  Obviously he went to the woods with intent to find a Hmong person to kill.  To claim that he was shot at first and then laughed is bogus.  He killed the man by stabbing him 6 times and then hid the corpse.  Nichols even went home first before heading to the hospital for treatement.  Why didn’t he call the police and report what happened if he was so innocent?  The defense can argue that Nichols was in shock to explain for his behavior, but what about the case of Chai Vang who shot and killed other hunters and claimed self-defense?  Obviously it did not matter to the jurors because they saw Chai as a dangerous, crazy man on the loose.  Nichols on the other hand was seen as an innocent, scared man who fought back in self-defense.   But is this true?  Did investigators even bother to research into who shot first and what really happened?  Was it Cha who fought in self-defense instead?  But of course none of this matter because he is dead and his story does not count. Nichols should have received a first-degree intentional homicide charge and sentenced to life in prison.  What the heck!