"Yes, I was angry and I was scared, not as much angry as scared."

Chai Soua Vang, accused of gunning down six hunters, takes the witness stand at his murder trial here in Wisconsin. He offers an explanation for beginning the shooting: he believed one of them shot at him and missed. But some of them were running away and were shot in the back.

Under cross-examination by Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, Vang was asked if each victim deserved to die. She held up a photo of each person as she asked the question.

Vang answered "no" in some cases and "yes" in others, including when he was asked about Crotteau and his son.

How can he possibly avoid conviction if his explanation doesn't apply to all the victims? I haven't read all the testimony. I suppose it's possible to think that from his perspective at the time, all of the victims were threatening him, but that on reflection now, he knows they didn't deserve it.