The only odd thing about this story, when I tried to pull it up on Yahoo News or Reuters, the system crashed. Had to go out of this country to get to the story.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Is it still illegal to shoot lawyers?
(just kidding, just kidding)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Well, he was in Texas....but I think Republican Lawyers are out of season.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
The only odd thing about this story, when I tried to pull it up on Yahoo News or Reuters, the system crashed. Had to go out of this country to get to the story.
It was on the NBC evening news too.
Maybe there were SO many people trying to view it, the system was overwhelmed - or maybe - naw, we couldn't be seeing censorship in the U.S.
The dark Prince doesn't have that much power, does he...?
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Is it still illegal to shoot lawyers?
"Cheney shoots lawyer"... if that's how the White House is saying it, that's some of the most brilliant spin I've ever heard Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:The US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, has accidentally shot and injured a man during a quail hunting trip in Texas.
Was he trying to bag Dan Quayle?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Ok, now we just need the lawyer to seek violent revenge. Come on.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Was it wrong to burst out laughing when I read this story?
The joke this brought up in our family was that next thing ya know, Cheney will be asking the Prez to go hunting.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Anyone who is suggesting that their inability to view the article due to censorship is... well, wrong. It's been available on loads of US-based news sites ever since the news broke. The most popular of which are having traffic issues, naturally.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Either someone is having a bad day or they are a big supporter of Bush. Which is it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I feel sorry for the VP's Secret Service detail. I mean, imagine answering questions about how an accidental discharge of a weapon was allowed to happen so close to the VP? I mean, did any of them rush to step between the VP and his gun? Was the VP's gun hand wrestled to the ground and the gun covered with the bodies of his protective forces? What if he'd managed to shoot himself in the foot or something!
I'm also kind of wondering how something like this plays in the international press? They already love to portray Americans as a bunch of trigger-happy gun-toten' cowboys.
Oh well. It really was an accident. I hope the VP takes this opportunity to get a message out about gun safety. It'll be interesting to see how he handles it. Will they ignore it? Laugh it off? Or will he admit that he did something stupid (assuming that the gun didn't just shoot itself, it seems that a stupid mistake was made).
I'm just glad the man wasn't killed.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Silkie, you are the reason most boards have an "ignore user" feature.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Why did someone have to bring Dan Quayle up??
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Because they were "Quail Hunting". Its a pun.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Yeah, I got the pun. Still.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
But ... what did the Lawyer say to Cheney before he was shot?
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: Silkie, you are the reason most boards have an "ignore user" feature.
HollowEarth - lighten up - a sense of humor is a good quality to have.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I thought it was funny, Silkie.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I feel sorry for the VP's Secret Service detail. I mean, imagine answering questions about how an accidental discharge of a weapon was allowed to happen so close to the VP? I mean, did any of them rush to step between the VP and his gun? Was the VP's gun hand wrestled to the ground and the gun covered with the bodies of his protective forces? What if he'd managed to shoot himself in the foot or something!
I'm also kind of wondering how something like this plays in the international press? They already love to portray Americans as a bunch of trigger-happy gun-toten' cowboys.
Oh well. It really was an accident. I hope the VP takes this opportunity to get a message out about gun safety. It'll be interesting to see how he handles it. Will they ignore it? Laugh it off? Or will he admit that he did something stupid (assuming that the gun didn't just shoot itself, it seems that a stupid mistake was made).
I'm just glad the man wasn't killed.
LOL - Shades of Gerald Ford's lethal golf swing!
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I would imagine these hunting trips alone are stressful enough for the Secret Service.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Silkie, no offense, but there would have to be some good quality humor first. Your joke was old 4 and half years ago. ---
As for Cheney, one part of me wonders if he'll go to court. I assume not, since his unfortunate target will likely not press charges, but I wonder if the state is "forced" to file charges anyway? Anyway I think Cheney should face legal consequences (if there are any for this situation in Texas). I think probation or community service would be enough. I presume in the end, this will just be a weird trivia question.
-Bok
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
This isn't the first time someone was injured in a hunting accident. Why do you feel there should be legal consequences? Maybe one of the lawyers can jump in, but other than things like "reckless discharge", what charges could be filed?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Well, the lawyer survived. Isn't that enough of a crime to demand crimminal charges?
Hmmm. Iran building nuclear weapons, but Cheney pushes for Iraq invasion for fear of WMD. Yeah, I think our VP has a history of firing his weapon too soon and hitting the wrong target (medical term--Itchitus Fingeritus)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I can tell what part of the country, and political stripe, most of you belong. In the West this kind of thing happens all the time. Yes, it might give a particular group a "that is why hunting shouldn't be allowed" point. For hunters its more of an accident equal to any sporting event where a particular amount of danger is involved. The only thing weird is that the vice-pres was responsible.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Cheney Shoots Lawyer
The Republicans FINALLY start doing something right!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In the West this kind of thing happens all the time.
When people get shot out west, they refer to it as "culling the herd." It's not uncommon for four, maybe five guys out of a six-man hunting party to get shot in the face. The one who makes it back alive gets to carve their names in his belt buckle, which is why people with big belt buckles are so revered in their culture.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom made me grin.
He's on the funny this morning.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
He who is shot and runs away, lives to sue another day.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm not saying guns should be restricted, but if there are laws along these lines (involuntary assault? That sounds to serious for the actual event), I was just bringing up that Cheney shouldn't get them brushed under the rug. Which is what I expect will happen.
I'm not going to organize a march or anything, just mentioning that this should apply. If these things are generally swept under the rug, then so be it.
-Bok
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Actually there ar eno laws for such an incident, if the lawyer wishes to press charges for assault, or some such thing he can, but there is no law requiring someone to be prosecuted for an accidental, non fatal, non maiming shooting.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That's what I figured.
-Bok
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
I admit it - I have a sense of humor with a twist of lime! So shoot me - Oooops, wrong thread!
Charged with a crime? That's silly - first it was an accident, and second, if the lawyer was there that means he is Cheney's friend (or would like to be one of his friends).
It IS funny though, and will give all the late night comedians fodder for a few days...
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
well, it's not so funny for the guy who was shot... and I kind of got the impression his daughter was ticked.
I also heard Cheney was using a "hunting rifle". While you can get shell shot for rifles, I'd guess he was using a shotgun.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm pretty sure you don't hunt quail with a rifle unless you're really good, and Cheney -- who usually hunts at places which release quail from cages upon demand -- is probably not that good.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Is that anything like hunting turkeys by hanging a butterball from a tree?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Is that anything like hunting turkeys by hanging a butterball from a tree?
That's my kind of hunting.
-pH
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
The news reports I heard/read/saw mentioned that the lawyer got hit with "sprayshot" from Cheney's firearm. Sprayshot, to me, who knows next to nothing about guns, seems to imply shotgun. But then, I know nothing about hunting. /shrug
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
It was a 28 gauge shotgun and he was using buckshot.
I shake my head at the thought, but apparently, Cheney walks around with Doctors and has an ambulance on call, so at least this guy got good, rapid attention.
I find it strange that we didn't hear about for 24 hours.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
ummm, buckshot? you generally don't hunt birds with buckshot. Buckshot is kinda big, and this guy wouldn't be in as good condition as he is. He was probably using one of the many sizes of bird shot.
I'm not a hunter myself, although I enjoy shooting and such. I think I'd rather skeet shoot than shoot birds on demand, but hey, that's just me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
They had to run an exhaustive background check on the victim. If he'd had any plausible connections to Al Qaeda, they would have let him die and spun it as a positive. Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kayla: It was a 28 gauge shotgun and he was using buckshot.
I shake my head at the thought, but apparently, Cheney walks around with Doctors and has an ambulance on call, so at least this guy got good, rapid attention.
I find it strange that we didn't hear about for 24 hours.
It was birdshot - a spray of little beebees. That is the standard thing that you shoot quail/pheasant/birds with. My Dad was an avid hunter and I am a pretty good shot myself.
Now why would you think it is strange that we didn't hear about it for 24 hrs.? It IS the Dark Prince, after all, and he shot a longtime Republican in a private place.
quote:Shooting victim in Cheney hunting accident is patriarch of Texas Republicans
Monday, February 13, 2006 AUSTIN, Texas - The man accidentally shot by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is an avid hunter and a longtime Republican activist who owns the building where the Republican Party's rise to power in Texas was engineered.
Harry Whittington, 78, was in stable condition at a Corpus Christi,Texas, hospital Monday, recovering from birdshot wounds after he was shot on Saturday in a South Texas ranch.
Whittington, a lawyer, owns the Vaughn building in Austin, which has hosted Republican campaign headquarters for decades. President George W. Bush used the building for his gubernatorial campaigns, current Texas Gov. Rick Perry is there now, and Karl Rove, the architect of Bush's rise to the presidency, used to have an office there as well.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
smitty, they (newspapers) call it both buckshot and shot gun pellets. I assume they are the same thing.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: They had to run an exhaustive background check on the victim. If he'd had any plausible connections to Al Qaeda, they would have let him die and spun it as a positive.
no, buckshot is something completely different. Buckshot and slugs are used for hunting deer. Birdshot is used for shooting birds. Rock salt is used for shooting girl scouts and other tresspassers
I though all the higher up Republicans were vampires - can you hunt quail at night?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:and he shot a longtime Republican in a private place
I heard he got shot in the face.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I heard a lot of the shot was in the face as well. Depending on the pattern, though, it could possibly hit both.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
smitty, here's a Texas paper that calls it buckshot and birdshot all in the same article.
I don't know what he was shot with. Would have been nice if Cheney's press office had better informed the press. It must be classified. I wonder if there will be a congressional hearing on who the leak was.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Todayonline uses buckshot and shotgun pellets in the same article.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, considering the press was calling a rifle a shotgun, I wouldn't trust them. They don't tend to be gun people. Considering I buy buckshot and birdshot, I'm not quite an expert, but close Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, it was a Texas paper. I figured if there were a paper out there that would know about hunting, it would be one in Texas.
Why do you think he was using a rifle?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
That's the report I heard on the radio today. I'm fair certain he wasn't using a rifle. I worded that backwards.
Those wacky Texans.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I know how much Republicans love it when bad news was coming out of the White House and Clinton used distraction to diffuse the bad press (bombing a country to cover up an affair and whatnot.)
So, is it at all coincidental that shortly after being accused of authorizing the Plame leak, Cheney shot someone?
You'll notice we aren't talking about the leak today.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
Why on Earth is this a big deal? People get stray shots from hunting accidents all the time. Just because a Republican VP is involved, it's suddenly a nation-wide conspiracy? Isn't there anything else liberals can whine about? Not that I don't enjoy all comments made in jest here...I just don't get why anybody could seriously care about this...
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Um, I think most people just think it's funny. Nobody really seems to seriously care. Plus, even though hunting accidents happen all the time, it still makes the people involved look pretty stupid, and when one of those people is the VP of the USA, people are going to point and laugh even more than normal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I heard some NBC correspondent whining to the White House press secretary about how long it took the White House to make a statement about it.
It's not like they kept it secret - it was put on a local newspaper's web site on Sunday morning.
quote:I assume not, since his unfortunate target will likely not press charges, but I wonder if the state is "forced" to file charges anyway?
I can attest firsthand to the difficulty of prosecuting wounding charges without cooperation of the victim.
Funny how a nail sticking out of a railing can leave an absolutely clean 6-inch slice down someone's back. Even funnier when there happens to be a chef's knife with blood on the tip lying on the living room floor when the police arrive.
Sorry, I'm a little annoyed with domestic violence victims recanting on the stand today.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I heard some NBC correspondent whining to the White House press secretary about how long it took the White House to make a statement about it.
It's not like they kept it secret - it was put on a local newspaper's web site on Sunday morning.
I was listening to the White House Press Conference today and it was all the Press Corp was asking about.
Personally I'm a little confused about why it was absolutely vital that the American people know about it within 10 minutes of the incident. I mean, it's a funny story, but not exactly time sensitive.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Why on Earth is this a big deal? People get stray shots from hunting accidents all the time. Just because a Republican VP is involved, it's suddenly a nation-wide conspiracy? Isn't there anything else liberals can whine about? Not that I don't enjoy all comments made in jest here...I just don't get why anybody could seriously care about this...
This is exactly what the Liberals said about Clinton, except I'm willing to bet that the incidence of husbands cheating on their wives is much, much higher than that of shotgun accidents.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think people are missing the important part of the story. It's not that the guy who got shot is a lawyer. It's that he's 78. The vice-president was trying out a new solution to the Social Security problem. If it had worked, all across the country, AARP members would be getting invitations to go hunting with high ranking Republicans.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:and he shot a longtime Republican in a private place
I heard he got shot in the face.
I just watched Jon Stewart's show - half of it was about "Dead-Eye Dick" shooting a 78 year old friend in the face.
You just have to see it - it's hilarious!
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
Apparently Harry Whittington was in intensive care when admitted, which of course makes it less funny.
But he's much better now.
Cheney had a hunting license, but didn't have the 'bird stamp' to authorize quail hunting.
quote:Whittington, a prominent Republican attorney in the Texas capital of Austin, was in stable condition at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial and was moved from intensive care to a "step-down unit" Monday. Doctors decided to leave several birdshot pellets lodged in his skin rather than try to remove them. Armstrong said the accident occurred toward the end of the hunt, as darkness was encroaching and they were preparing to go inside. Whittington was retrieving from tall grass a bird he had shot. - - - She said Cheney stayed "close but cool" while the agents and medical personnel treated Whittington, then took him away via ambulance to the hospital. Later, the hunting group sat down for dinner while Whittington was being treated, receiving updates from a family member at the hospital. Armstrong described Cheney's demeanor during dinner as "very worried" about Whittington.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Actually there will be charges pressed. According to http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/bush_administration Cheney didn't get a hunting stamp. He was hunting without a liscence.
Actually, I heard on the news that this hunting stamp thing is a very new regulation and the usual punishment is a fine and a warning. I wouldn't call that pressing charges.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Smoking gun says they issue a citation that doesn't carry a fine or a penalty of any sort. So, yeah, not a big deal.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
OK, he didn't have a bird stamp for quail. Note I didn't say QUALE (big difference, get off the guy's back already, it's old news). Big nono for Cheney. You have to have the proper license. The biggest reason this is all a big portion of the news is that Cheney is PUBLIC. Yes, a very public view, as he is the VP. Nothing else. As an avid hunter I can say he wasn't using a rifle, no one does when bird hunting. He was also using birdshot, not buckshot. I use buckshot when I hunt (I hunt deer). There would be nothing left of that lawyer if Cheney had used buckshot.
Yes, this does give ammo (pun?) to the anti-hunting activists who I would like nothing more than to see die a slow death. When they get off MY land I won't mind.
Another thing, these birds are stocked. It's not as if they were some random birds caught out in the field. They do the same with pheasant, which is good eating by the way. Game hunting is (in a controled manner only) totally different than it used to be. We ensure that the game will last by stocking/breeding these animals so that it will have no detrimental impact on the population of them. Note that I am not going to say the same for sport fishing (I hate this).
If I missed anything, please let me know.
[ February 14, 2006, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It had to be done!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well, I suppose we could argue whether or not it HAD to be done, but the far more important point here is how little willpower I have when it comes to mocking Republicans.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
And how little firepower can actually be trusted to draft-dodging Republicans.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Here are a few of the jokes.
``Late Show with David Letterman,'' CBS:
``Good news, ladies and gentlemen, we have finally located weapons of mass destruction: It's Dick Cheney.''
``But here is the sad part - before the trip Donald Rumsfeld had denied the guy's request for body armor.''
``We can't get Bin Laden, but we nailed a 78-year-old attorney.''
``The guy who got gunned down, he is a Republican lawyer and a big Republican donor and fortunately the buck shot was deflected by wads of laundered cash. So he's fine. He took a little in the wallet.''
``The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,'' NBC:
``Although it is beautiful here in California, the weather back East has been atrocious. There was so much snow in Washington, D.C., Dick Cheney accidentally shot a fat guy thinking it was a polar bear.
``That's the big story over the weekend. ... Dick Cheney accidentally shot a fellow hunter, a 78-year-old lawyer. In fact, when people found out he shot a lawyer, his popularity is now at 92 percent.''
``I think Cheney is starting to lose it. After he shot the guy he screamed, 'Anyone else want to call domestic wire tapping illegal?'''
``Dick Cheney is capitalizing on this for Valentine's Day. It's the new Dick Cheney cologne. It's called Duck!''
``The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,'' Comedy Central:
``Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a man during a quail hunt ... making 78-year-old Harry Whittington the first person shot by a sitting veep since Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, of course, (was) shot in a duel with Aaron Burr over issues of honor, integrity and political maneuvering. Whittington? Mistaken for a bird.''
``Now, this story certainly has its humorous aspects. ... But it also raises a serious issue, one which I feel very strongly about. ... moms, dads, if you're watching right now, I can't emphasize this enough: Do not let your kids go on hunting trips with the vice president. I don't care what kind of lucrative contracts they're trying to land, or energy regulations they're trying to get lifted - it's just not worth it.''
``Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson,'' CBS:
``He is a lawyer and he got shot in the face. But he's a lawyer, he can use his other face. He'll be all right.''
``You can understand why this lawyer fellow let his guard down, because if you're out hunting with a politician, you think, 'If I'm going to get it, it's going to be in the back.
' ``
``The big scandal apparently is that they didn't release the news for 18 hours. I don't think that's a scandal at all. I'm quite pleased about that. Finally there's a secret the vice president's office can keep.''
``Apparently the reason they didn't release the information right away is they said we had to get the facts right. That's never stopped them in the past.''
[ February 14, 2006, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Silkie ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, and that's why the Daily Show is funny and the rest of them aren't. The Daily Show tries to not go for the cheap jokes.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
They never did say the part that we really need to know: did they bag any quail?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
If he were to die as a result of this shooting, how would it be handled, legally? I assume that it would be handled however fatal hunting accidents usually are, but I don't really know what that is. Would it be considered involuntary manslaughter, or does the a person automatically assume risk when they go hunting, legally speaking? Dag? UofUlawguy?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Very complicated. It's certainly homicide (the killing of one person by another). The mental state would determine what the actual crime is.
The only one that might fit is criminally negligent homicide. Criminal negligence is defined as follows:
quote:A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
So the standards of care involved in hunting would be highly relevant. Was the victim really supposed to announce his arrival? Was Cheney allowed to rely on the absence of such announcement?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Wow, hadn't heard that. If the poor guy dies, it'll be a tragedy (for the poor guy's family).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I had heard he was out of intensive care. Crud...so is he back in ICU?
The poor man.
I hope he recovers quickly.
I'm also amazed at how fast these companies capitalize on tragedy like this. Some toy company has already released a Young Dick Cheney Action Figure Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
This kind of news, is what makes life worth living. Things were getting a bit to serious.
"Cheney shoots man in the face!"
I can see it in the presses now!
Good ole' America.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:I'm willing to bet that the incidence of husbands cheating on their wives is much, much higher than that of shotgun accidents.
Yes. Which makes it so much less a big deal when the man who runs the country willingly breaks what most people consider the most sacred promise a man can make, than when the number two man has a serious accident while invovled in an aknowledgedly dangerous sport.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I don't know. It just seems like quite a coincidence that this happened so soon after it became generally known that Scooter Libby has claimed that his superiors, which would be...let me see...oh, Dick Cheney, mostly...approved his leak of Valerie Plame's name to the press.
Not sayin' anything, just that it's intereting timing.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Which makes it so much less a big deal when the man who runs the country willingly breaks what most people consider the most sacred promise a man can make, than when the number two man has a serious accident while invovled in an aknowledgedly dangerous sport.
Neither of which has anything important to do with my life, which is the point erosomniac was making. They're both funny, in a sad, ironic kind of way. You wouldn't like it if people poked around in your love life, however faithful you were, just like I wouldn't like similar treatment regarding a sporting accident.
These are both public figures, and it comes with the territory. But what it comes down to, as far as I'm concerned, is that neither event has much at all to do with their governing ability.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So y'all's saying Cheney shootin' his load into man not his wife is the same as Clinton.....onto a dress not his wife's?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Not the same thing, just about as relevant to anyone other than those directly involved.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'm more interested in why docmagik made the odd juxtaposition. And why you didn't correct him if you think the acts are not comparable.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re-edited back in since there has been a reference below. I'm more interested in why docmagik thinks the acts are comparable; and why you didn't correct him if you think they're not.
[ February 15, 2006, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'm more interested in why docmagik thinks the acts are comparable; and why you didn't correct him if you think they're not.
Actually, I was the one who said they were comparable. I said so because I believe that in both cases, the acts are not indicative in any way of the individual's ability to lead, and in both cases, the opposing political party believes they are.
Edit:
quote:I'm more interested in why docmagik made the odd juxtaposition.
*ba-dum, KSH!*
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Lessee... Lewinsky would have had to wash the dress if she hadn't desired the keepsake more.
Whittington is hospitalized in intensive care with shotgun pellets having penetrated his pericardium leaving a pathway for infection. At least one pellet has penetrated the heart muscle itself, leaving cardiologists fearful that the pellet(s) may enter the cardiovascular system where it could act as the equivalent of a travelling blood clot, until it gets lodged and possibly cause cardiac arrest or pulmonary embolism or stroke. And surgeons prefer to wait in hope that the pellet(s) will be stopped/encysted by Whittington's immune&repair cuz ripping apart a 78year-old's ribs to gain access to remove the pellet(s) might kill him, either in surgery or during hospital recovery period. Or drasticly shorten his life after he leaves the hospital.
Seems to me that a possible homicide is a FAR more serious matter than a dress stain.
[ February 15, 2006, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, I don't think the dress stain was the issue. And not harping on the whole Lewinsky thing. But I think intentionally doing a bad thing is worse than unintentionally doing a bad thing.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Seems to me that a possible homicide is a FAR more serious matter than a dress stain.
A coverup is a coverup - to the extent that happened, it is somewhat similar. Otherwise it is apples and oranges.
Consensual sex between adults is way different than a hunting accident.
quote: Hospital officials said they were not concerned about the six to 200 other pieces of birdshot that might still be lodged in his body (!!!).
Cheney was using 7 1/2 shot from a 28-gauge shotgun. Shotgun pellets typically are made of steel or lead; the pellets in 7 1/2 shot are just under one-tenth of an inch in diameter.
Cheney watched a news conference Tuesday where doctors described Whittington's complications. Then the vice president called and wished him well and asked if there was anything he needed.
One of the worst things for Cheney's image appears to be is this perceived "coldness" in his response to Whittington's injury.
quote:After Whittington developed an irregular heartbeat, doctors performed a cardiac catheterization, in which a thin, flexible tube is inserted into the heart, to diagnose his condition, said Peter Banko, the hospital's administrator.
The shot was either touching or embedded in the heart muscle near the top chambers, called the atria, officials said. Two things resulted:
It caused inflammation that pushed on the heart in a way to temporarily block blood flow, what the doctors called a ``silent heart attack.'' This is not a traditional heart attack where an artery is blocked. They said Whittington's arteries were healthy.
It irritated the atria, caused an irregular heartbeat known as atrial fibrillation, which is not immediately life-threatening. But it must be treated because it can spur blood clots to form. Most cases can be corrected with medication.
---
Texas officials said the shooting was an accident and no charges have been brought against the vice president.
A Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report issued Monday said Whittington was retrieving a downed bird and stepped out of the hunting line he was sharing with Cheney. ``Another covey was flushed and Cheney swung on a bird and fired, striking Whittington in the face, neck and chest at approximately 30 yards,'' the report said.
Cheney DID violate an unwritten (?) safety rule for shooting game birds: There should be 'sky under the bird' when you shoot. That's meant to help hunters avoid shooting other hunters in the area.
[ February 15, 2006, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Silkie ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A coverup is a coverup - to the extent that happened, it is somewhat similar.
Since the extent a "coverup" happened in the shooting incident is zero, apparently they aren't similar at all.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
As much as I'd love to see Dick Cheney leave Washington in disgrace, I do not believe for a minute that this was anything but an accident, and I don't think a brief delay in releasing the news is all that critical. The incident had no effect on Cheney's availability for work or his physical condition, and is simply not relevant to anything that's in his job specifications.
I do hope that we hear something like a message on gun safety out of this because, while hunting is inherently dangerous, one of the reasons it is so is because some hunters are inexperienced and either do not know or do not sufficiently heed the advice on safe practices.
It sounds as if Cheney did what some have told me is called a "snap" shot. It's literally "shooting from the hip" without taking careful aim. You see something move and you point the gun from whatever position you are holding it in, and you shoot.
here's a man who is, I'm guessing, about six feet tall, give or take. He is 30 yards from the VP. And the VP hits him. Before judging this too critically, I'd want to know the terrain. Was he on a rise compared to the VP's position, or did Dick Cheney fire his gun basically level with the ground...without KNOWING where the rest of the hunting party was at that moment?
I can see how there might be rules about how one approaches another group of hunters, especially if they don't know about your presence in the field at all. But this man was part of the VP's hunting party.
I'm thinking the person who pulled the trigger has a responsibility for where their bullets (or shot in this case) goes. If that's not a fundamental rule of hunting (or any gun sport), then I was trained incorrectly when I took firearms safety to obtain a permit in Florida.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yes, this is a cheap shot, no pun intended actually.
Yes, this accident bears little on The Vice President's abilities to do his job, or that of President Bush if needed.
However, it does show his extreme competitive nature, and willingness to take chances, since it appears that in his eagerness to shoot the game, he fired from the hip at the first hint of noise.
I am more interested in finding out which lobbyist paid for this hunting trip, and how many such hunting trips have been bought and paid for.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why do such silly controversies erupt into such massive media issues while seemingly serious controversies slip by without all that much attention? Yeah, it's bad that Cheney accidently did this, but what's the big deal about waiting a day to give the story to the media?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:A coverup is a coverup
This is what the media is harping on. They're not as concerned about what happened to the man as they are about the implication that there was some sort of cover-up.
In reality, at least in this century, it's seldom the act that brings the Man In Power down--it's the cover-up. Once they can show that the truth was being hidden, they get the guy on the perjury charge, or at the very least on the credibility issue.
I agree with Dag that in this case there was no cover-up, but that doesn't change the fact that having the chance at proving a cover-up is the media equivalent of going for the two-point conversion.
And that's irrespective of the political party involved. Ultimately, the media's highest allegiance is to the media, and exposing cover-ups is one of the greatest ways they can manifest their power and reinforce the position of power they see themselves in with respect to the nation. (Time it was, people wanted their kids to grow up to be president. Now they want their kids to grow up to take down the President.)
So why isn't it the scandal that brings the people down? Because people are so willing to twist morality in the way that makes their guy look good.
To a conservative, Clinton was breaking sacred promises and commitments. To a liberal, he was having consensual sex. To a conservative, Cheney was involved in a serious accident. To a liberal, Cheney shot a guy.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
:? I can see the difference with the Clinton example - one group finds it immoral, one group sees it as ok.
But in the Cheney example, you're basically oversimplifying the facts. It's like the difference in saying "Person A slept with Person B" and "Person A slept in the same bed as Person B". Technically, they're both accurate. But one implies wrongdoing.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
The thing that concerns me more than any alleged cover-up, and something that I was not aware of when I posted before, is this. Apparently the local authorities were not allowed access to Cheney until the morning following the incident. A law enforcement official showed up at the ranch that evening, from reports I've heard, asking to speak with the vice-president, but the officer was denied that access by the Secret Service.
Now, I'm not saying that anything was being hidden. I'm inclined to think that it was simply a matter of Cheney's documented penchant for secrecy and his apparent belief that being the vice-president makes him better than everybody else. However, it creates the impression that perhaps something was being hidden or avoided. That, maybe, some drinking had been going on, or that there had been some other sort of negligence at work, leading to the incident. Even if there was nothing sinsiter going on, it creates the opportunity for people to wonder. This is not a positive for the administration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Even if there was nothing sinsiter going on, it creates the opportunity for people to wonder. This is not a positive for the administration.
I agree.
quote: his apparent belief that being the vice-president makes him better than everybody else.
It should be noted that everyone can assert the right that Cheney did, even without Secret Service. At minimum a person in a private home can require the police to obtain a warrant before seizing them.
The rules are slightly different for visitors, but there's still some protection everyone is entitled to.
That's not to say the police likely weren't a lot more circumspect because of Cheney's position. But the right asserted is one we all have to some degree.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
or it could be something completely different than your allegations....
DK...dead link.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Was it shot?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
corrected link Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
DK, I'm still waiting for the explanation of how it came to pass that a member of the VP's own hunting party, 30 yards from the VP, was shot. I believe there's a lesson here for gun safety that's being totally ignored in the furor over partial and delayed information getting to the press.
The one good thing that can happen when public people are involved in something so tragic is that the spotlight can, at times, be focused on a positive and worthwhile message.
I don't really see how the shot is not at least PARTLY Dick Cheney's responsibility. And I would hope that he gets a chance to explain why it's important to take careful aim and know what you are shooting at before you pull the trigger on a deadly weapon.
Sometimes, that delay means you don't bag the game. But it's not like his life is in the balance if he doesn't react quickly enough to the unfolding situation. The advantage to quick, unaimed shooting is in your "take," not in your survival (assuming Mr. Cheney will not go hungry on a night when he fails to kill enough birds).
I am still hopeful that when his injured friend is out of danger, Mr. Cheney decides to address this issue and give a public accounting of the incident. Not because I want to see him further embarrassed, but because I hope to find out something about his character when he does so.
I expect to be disappointed. I expect to either hear nothing, or to somehow continue presenting the idea that the injured man was not where he was supposed to be, and didn't give a warning of his approach. I hope that's not the case, frankly, because I want to see the leaders of this country back up their fine talk about "personal responsibility." To me, that means going beyond only accepting blame when there's no other way around it. That means that when things happen, the first reaction is to see what one personally could've done differently to make the outcome better, and to make changes to ensure that NEXT TIME the outcome is better.
This, to me, spills over into the admin's response to other issues. It becomes a character issue for me because I see many of the failings (like Katrina) to be related to a culture of spreading responsibility to others instead of looking inward for potential sources of improvement.
Mr. Cheney has an opportunity to display his basic character here.
I feel strongly that if he remains silent, he is failing to correct the impression that it was the other guy's fault he got shot. I understand the guy may have violated a hunting safety "rule" but there's an important basic rule of firearms safety that, to me, is of a higher order and provides even better insurance against this type of accident. Aim...then shoot.
I can't quite see how Mr. Cheney failed to adhere to that most basic safety rule. And, as a result of THAT failure, the mistake his friend made took on much more importance than it would've otherwise.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Bob, there's a couple of articles in Slate that address the "who's fault" issue, mostly saying they both shared blame.
This one is more speculation about what happened and if the official story "works."
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: A coverup is a coverup - to the extent that happened, it is somewhat similar.
Since the extent a "coverup" happened in the shooting incident is zero, apparently they aren't similar at all.
I don't agree that 'the extent a "coverup" happened in the shooting incident is zero' but I also doubt that there was a serious attempt at a coverup. This was a personal issue that had to be made public, given it's seriousness.
quote:Originally posted by docmagik:
quote:A coverup is a coverup
This is what the media is harping on. They're not as concerned about what happened to the man as they are about the implication that there was some sort of cover-up.
In reality, at least in this century, it's seldom the act that brings the Man In Power down--it's the cover-up. Once they can show that the truth was being hidden, they get the guy on the perjury charge, or at the very least on the credibility issue.
I agree with Dag that in this case there was no cover-up, but that doesn't change the fact that having the chance at proving a cover-up is the media equivalent of going for the two-point conversion.
And that's irrespective of the political party involved. Ultimately, the media's highest allegiance is to the media, and exposing cover-ups is one of the greatest ways they can manifest their power and reinforce the position of power they see themselves in with respect to the nation. (Time it was, people wanted their kids to grow up to be president. Now they want their kids to grow up to take down the President.)
So why isn't it the scandal that brings the people down? Because people are so willing to twist morality in the way that makes their guy look good.
To a conservative, Clinton was breaking sacred promises and commitments. To a liberal, he was having consensual sex. To a conservative, Cheney was involved in a serious accident. To a liberal, Cheney shot a guy.
Well said. I agree that too much has been made of this accident. I must be a liberal conservative (a moderate) since I think Clinton was having consensual sex (a private matter between him, his wife, and God) AND I think this shooting was an accident (a public matter, since it was a serious gunshot wound).
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I'm thinking the person who pulled the trigger has a responsibility for where their bullets (or shot in this case) goes. If that's not a fundamental rule of hunting (or any gun sport), then I was trained incorrectly when I took firearms safety to obtain a permit in Florida.
I wouldn't want to be around anyone who was that careless with a gun, either!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't really see how the shot is not at least PARTLY Dick Cheney's responsibility. And I would hope that he gets a chance to explain why it's important to take careful aim and know what you are shooting at before you pull the trigger on a deadly weapon.
I agree. You pull a trigger, you bear some responsibility for whatever happens. Not necessarily legal - either criminal or tort - liability, but certain moral responsibility automatically incurs when one chooses to do something dangerous.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
It's one of the first rules taught by responsible gun owners. Before you pull the trigger, know where you're shot is going to go.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"You can talk about all of the other conditions that exist at the time but that's the bottom line and _ it was not Harry's fault," he said. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Applauds Mr. Cheney.
(Thought you'd never hear me say that.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm glad that he said that.
What an awful time for everyone.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Bob, there's a couple of articles in Slate that address the "who's fault" issue, mostly saying they both shared blame.
This one is more speculation about what happened and if the official story "works."
quote: (from the second link shown above)
Whose fault was it? If there is anything that Harry's friends at the Vaughn Building are angry about, it is not the shooting itself but the attempt by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to place the blame on the victim. It's the shooter's duty to know what he is shooting at and where his companions are. A shooting accident is always the fault of the shooter. Always.
When you hunt with other people, safety must be your primary consideration. As mentioned above, no one was going to go hungry if they didn't bag a quail.
If the injury had not been this serious then I don't think it would have been reported, and it wouldn't have NEEDED to be reported, in my opinion. BUT this was a life threatening injury.
This article makes sense - the facts as given don't add up. I don't think that is sinister - and you know I am no admirer of the dark Prince! - just some advanced face-saving.
I hope the man recovers with no further complications.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Applauds Mr. Cheney.
(Thought you'd never hear me say that.)
Same here.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote: He (Cheney) called it "one of the worst days of my life."
Obvious response: One of the worst days of his life. How does he think his friend felt?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Obvious response: One of the worst days of his life. How does he think his friend felt?
I actually think this is a statement that demonstrates a non-self-centered outlook. First, Cheney can't conceivably speak for the guy who was shot about it being one of the worst days of his life. There are too many possible far worse things.
Second, one of the most ready interpretations of what he's saying is that harm that he caused to another was harm caused to him. That's a good thing.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It should be noted that everyone can assert the right that Cheney did, even without Secret Service. At minimum a person in a private home can require the police to obtain a warrant before seizing them.
The rules are slightly different for visitors, but there's still some protection everyone is entitled to.
That's not to say the police likely weren't a lot more circumspect because of Cheney's position. But the right asserted is one we all have to some degree.
You're quite right, Dag. And I don't know the law on warrants in Texas. However, I do know something about them in California, having done some work on the subject for the judge I did an internship for. And I can guarantee that if you or I had been the ones who, even accidentally, shot someone, it would not have taken until the next day to get a warrant.
And, if the police were being "circumspect" because of Cheney's position, shame on them. We don't have - or, anyway, we are not supposed to have - one law for the powerful and another law for the rest of us in this country.
Sorry for being such an idealist, but you know, that's how I was raised.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And, if the police were being "circumspect" because of Cheney's position, shame on them. We don't have - or, anyway, we are not supposed to have - one law for the powerful and another law for the rest of us in this country.
I agree - if they were being circumspect. I just wanted to be clear about what exactly the problem is. I agree he should have talked to the police first - although I would reccomend to anyone I know get a lawyer before saying anything i they accidentally shoot someone.
However, I think you overestimate the ease with which a warrant can be obtained in this case. Without probable cause a crime was committed, there's nothing they can do to force entry. And if there is probable cause, about the only thing they could do is arrest him.
And I don't blame the police for being circumspect about arresting the VP.
However, this is why I think he should have volunteered to talk to them quickly, when I would not encourage the average person to do so. He can get a lawyer on a moment's notice, unlike us. And he should take care not to put the police in the position of seeking a warrant against him.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: However, I think you overestimate the ease with which a warrant can be obtained in this case. Without probable cause a crime was committed, there's nothing they can do to force entry. And if there is probable cause, about the only thing they could do is arrest him.
I think you and I are probably mostly on the same page about this, Dag, although we might be stating things slightly differently.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:"You can talk about all of the other conditions that exist at the time but that's the bottom line and _ it was not Harry's fault," he said. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."
I find Mr. Cheney's comments on the accident today to be commendable. I am a still disturbed that he refused to comment on the incident until the 5th day. It makes me more sceptical of his sincerity and more likely to believe that he made the comments as a PR move. None the less I can find no fault in his statement.
I am upset by peoples comments that hunting accidents happen all the time as so are not news worthy. Here are some statistics for 2002. . 20,000,000 total hunters . 850 total accidents (all types) . 761 non-fatal accidents . 89 fatal accidents . 514 two-party accidents . 333 self-inflicted accidents (3 unknown)
The number 850 accidents includes all accidents which were severe enough to be reported. Not all were shooting accidents, in fact the most common form of accident is cutting with a knife while cleaning an animal. That means that (at least in 2002) there was less that 1 serious hunting accident for every 20,000 hunters.
Although I do not hunt, I've lived in Montana, Utah and New Mexico for many years and had many friends who were serious hunters. The serious hunters I've known always view this kind of hunting accident as inexcusable. It is always the responsibility of the shooter to make sure that he/she won't hit a person when they fire.
The word accident has at least two connotations that are often confused. The first is to indicate that an event was unintentional. The second is to imply that it was not under any ones control, that it was unavoidable. That is was bad luck. Unfortunately, it is common when people use the word accident to indicate that it some tragedy was unintentional, people conclude that no one was at fault. That is very disturbing because it leads to a mentality that ultimately results in more accidents.
We need to make an effort to hold people accountable when their negligence of basic safety guidelines results in serious injuries. That should be true no matter whether the person is the Vice President or some college kid. Unless we start holding people responsible for the accidents caused by their negligence, too many people will continue to be the victims of avoidable accidents.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I don't know anything about the ranch where Cheney was hunting this time but in 2003 Cheney was involved in another hunting mini-scandal when he an 9 companions spent a day at a hunting club in PA. The group of 10 shot over 400 farm raised pheasants and an undisclosed number of ducks in a day. The serious hunters I've known wouldn't even consider that kind of thing hunting. It is the sort of activity that is a recipe for accidents.
Hunting accidents most likely to happen in groups when people get trigger happy and start blasting at anything that moves. If you are out to kill hundreds of birds in a few short hours, that's pretty much trigger happy by definition.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We need to make an effort to hold people accountable when their negligence of basic safety guidelines results in serious injuries. Unless we do, too many people will continue to be the victims of avoidable accidents.
I agree. I think losing hunting/gun privileges for some time is the minimum that should happen. That's something I wouldn't mind seeing implemented as a retroactive civil penalty. Outside that and tort/negligence law, there's not much that can be done retroactively.
But I'm not entirely opposed to a near-strict-liability misdemeanor for any shooting of a person while hunting. It just has to be implemented prospectively.
quote:The group of 10 shot over 400 farm raised pheasants and an undisclosed number of ducks in a day. The serious hunters I've known wouldn't even consider that kind of thing hunting.
That's not hunting - it's skeet shooting w/ live skeet.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But I'm not entirely opposed to a near-strict-liability misdemeanor for any shooting of a person while hunting. It just has to be implemented prospectively.
I thought such laws were already on the books in most places but just like traffic laws they tended to be enforced at the discretion of the police officer who investigated the event. Is there anyone here who know Texas law well enough to know whether there are any statutes on the books which could be applied in this case?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But that's different from what I proposed: a strict or near-strict liability misdemeanor would be a criminal law, and there are few strict liability criminal laws.
I'm looking into it, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: § 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. (b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of: (1) one or more individuals; or (2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied. (c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded. (d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01. (e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.
It seems to require recklessness, which would likely be hard to make out in this case, because he would have to "knowingly point[] a firearm at or in the direction of another," and that would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Does it make a difference that the law says that says "knowingly discharge" in addition to "knowingly point"?
In my mind, this makes a big difference because in the first case it could be argued that "knowingly" modifies only discharge and not "at or in the direction of".
If I read the law correctly, and I recognize that I am not trained to read laws, it is applicable if a person "knowingly" discharges a weapon which is accidentally pointed at a person or habitation or accidentally discharges a weapon which is "knowingly" pointed at a individual or weapon.
In this case, it is evident that the Cheney knowingly discharged the firearm. Since both Cheney and the eyewitness have already admitted that he fired intentionally it should not be difficult to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I know that the supreme court has ruled that the Pres. can be charged under tort law, but what about criminal law. If this law or a similar law were applicable, is it possible for a local Texas court to charge a sitting VP with a misdemeanor or third degree felony or would this have to be taken up in an impeachment hearing.
(I'm not suggesting that the VP should be impeached for a hunting accident, I just want to know whether Texas has jurisdiction over a VP in this case or if it will have to be addressed by congress.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does it make a difference that the law says that says "knowingly discharge" rather than "knowingly point"?
This depends entirely on case law, which I'm not up to looking into for this. It's a fairly involved process.
There is a canon of construction that a mens rea term (such as "knowingly" or "recklessly") modifies every element of a criminal offense unless there is a different mens rea term attached to that element. But this rule only applies in some states.
I haven't found that exact rule in Texas, but the Code seems to suggest something similar applies. From the Texas Code:
quote:§ 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires. (b) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element. (c) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is nevertheless required under Subsection (b), intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffices to establish criminal responsibility. (d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows: (1) intentional; (2) knowing; (3) reckless; (4) criminal negligence. (e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the culpability charged.
"Engages in conduct as required" suggests that a culpable state is required for all elements.
The reason I focused on the "knowingly point" language in the recklessness definition instead of "knowingly discharge" is that I assumed such a canon of interpretation was in effect - a not safe assumption for anything beyond idle chat and 2.) the presumption of "recklessness in section (c) of the statute I quoted above and the inclusion of "reckless" in the second part of (b) suggest to me that the knowledge elements applies to what is being pointed at when discharge occurs. I see such a suggestion because if they meant there to be no mental element associated with where the gun is pointing, they wouldn't need the reckless element in (b).
Again, it's just what I see as most likely, not anything I'd be comfortable arguing without a couple hours research.
This is one of the most complex parts of criminal law, and I only have a little experience, and that's limited to federal and Virginia crimes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know that the supreme court has ruled that the Pres. can be charged under tort law, but what about criminal law. If this law or a similar law were applicable, is it possible for a local Texas court to charge a sitting VP with a misdemeanor or third degree felony or would this have to be taken up in an impeachment hearing.
I don't know. There's nothing in the Constitution about not charging them with a crime, just that they can only be removed via impeachment.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
This news story is on the front page of my Internet service but I couldn't find the original source. This is worst case scenario - if Harry Whittington died due to the effects of this wound.
It is too long to post here:
quote:Cheney Could Face Charges in Shooting
By MATT CURRY
DALLAS (AP) - If the man wounded by Dick Cheney dies, the vice president could - in theory at least - face criminal charges, even though the shooting was an accident.
Dallas defense attorney David Finn, who has been a state and a federal prosecutor, said Wednesday that a Texas grand jury could bring a charge of criminally negligent homicide if there is evidence the vice president knew or should have known ``there was a substantial or unjustifiable risk that his actions would result in him shooting a fellow hunter.''
``The risk must be of such a nature and degree that it got to be pretty outrageous - that a reasonable person would have to say, `I am not pulling the trigger because this other guy might be in front of me,''' Finn said.
The charge carries up to two years behind bars, but with no previous felonies Cheney would be eligible for probation, the former prosecutor said.
Manslaughter, a more serious charge, would require a prosecutor to prove Cheney was reckless, which would be ``virtually impossible under the facts we know today,'' said Michael Sharlot, professor of criminal law at the University of Texas at Austin.
``With recklessness, the defendant has to be aware of the risk, but choose to ignore it. With negligence, he doesn't have to be conscious of the risk, but a reasonable person would have been,'' Sharlot said.
As vice president, Cheney has no immunity from (criminal) prosecution.
~ continues ~
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Cool - I was right about the potential charge. Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Cool - I was right about the potential charge.
You are frequently right Dag.
Even tho you are a Republican. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:"The image of him falling is something I'll never be able to get out of my mind," he said softly. "I fired, and there's Harry falling. And it was, I'd have to say, one of the worst days of my life."
Whittington, dressed in hunter's orange and wearing hunting glasses, had left the group of three hunters to recover a bird he had shot and, according to Armstrong, did not let his partners know he had returned. Cheney said he was trying to shoot a low-flying quail when he swung his 28-gauge shotgun to the right, the setting sun in his eyes. "I turned and shot at the bird, and at that second saw Harry standing there," he said.
I truly feel for the man. Hunting is one of those activities that people generally prefer to engage in only with close friends, from what I hear. This is the kind of thing that just should never happen and is only worse because the two are friends, and would never wish ill on each other.
I applaud the VP for his statement and I continue to hope that his friend recovers fully and suffers no further ill effects.
If reports are correct, Cheney had to be coerced by White House senior advisors (himself excluded, I suppose) to hold a press conference. But that didn't dictate what he said or the remorse that he expressed. For doing the right thing, he earned a few points in my book.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Bob, that's a big change of attitude from your earlier post. I haven't heard any of the reports that Cheney was coerced to hold the press conference. Maybe it is another one of those 'factual' reports by 'advisors' which I define as the press making it up to gain ratings and sell advertising. If you were in his position, would you have run out to the press minutes after it happened so they can get their sound bites? Maybe he didn't because he is genuinely concerned about his friend that is lying in a hospital and he knows it was his fault. VP or not, I would not put making sure the press got their soundbites first, second, or tenth on my list of things to do. There will be time for that later on.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
I would tend to believe he was coerced into speaking about his personal feelings. He has almost NEVER does that, except when cornered by the press. (Like the rumors about his gay daughter - he eventually had to make a statement to shut people up.)
One of the prices of a political life is that your life is made public.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Or maybe he doesn't speak about his personal because it's his personal life, not yours or the presses to exploit for their own gain?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't suppose you made big issues of Clinton's affairs, DK?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think the main reason that the press is going nuts is not because of the delay, but how it finally got out. I think many in the press felt insulted that it was released to a local paper and then the big news outlets had to call for confirmation. I find it amusing that people are going on about a 'cover up' when a local paper was notified and when the big media companies called for confirmation, the white house confirmed it. Not much of a cover up. As for the comparisons to Clinton, there is a big difference between telling a local paper rather than having a press conference and lying to a grand jury.
Personally, I think the idea of a press conference for something like this is silly. If I was president I would be tempted to disseminate most information through local papers rather than through big media outlets like CNN. For something big and time sensitive, I understand having a big press conference for something important, but for something like this I don't see that it is that important that the world hear about it within an hour of the accident.
[ February 16, 2006, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
This came across my email today. I'm not forwarding it, but I will share it with you, my dear Hatrack friends:
quote:Breaking News: CHENEY SAYS SHOOTING OF FELLOW HUNTER WAS BASED ON FAULTY INTELLIGENCE Believed Shooting Victim Was Zawahiri, Veep Says
Vice President Dick Cheney revealed today that he shot a fellow hunter while on a quail hunting trip over the weekend because he believed the man was the fugitive terror mastermind Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Mr. Cheney acknowledged that the man he sprayed with pellets on Saturday was not al-Zawahiri but rather Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old millionaire lawyer from Austin, blaming the mix-up on "faulty intelligence."
"I believed I had credible intelligence that al-Zawahiri had infiltrated my hunting party in disguise with the intent of spraying me with pellets," Mr. Cheney told reporters. "Only after I shot Harry in the face and he shouted 'Cheney, you bastard' did I realize that this intelligence was faulty."
Moments after Mr. Cheney's assault on Mr. Whittington, Mr. al-Zawahiri appeared in a new videotape broadcast on al-Jazeera to announce that he was uninjured in the vice president's attack because, in his words, "I was in Pakistan."
An aide to the vice president said he believed that the American people would believe Mr. Cheney's version of events, but added, "If he was going to shoot any of his cronies right now it's a shame it wasn't Jack Abramoff."
At the White House, President George W. Bush defended his vice president's shooting of a fellow hunter, saying that the attack sent "a strong message to terrorists everywhere."
"The message is, if Dick Cheney is willing to shoot an innocent American citizen at point-blank range, imagine what he'll do to you," Mr. Bush said.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Bob, that's a big change of attitude from your earlier post.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I don't believe I've changed any position from the start of this affair to now. And, I said I would praise Cheney if he did the right thing, which in my opinion was to come out and talk about how the person who pulled the trigger is responsible. He did it, and I praised him for it.
quote:I haven't heard any of the reports that Cheney was coerced to hold the press conference. Maybe it is another one of those 'factual' reports by 'advisors' which I define as the press making it up to gain ratings and sell advertising. If you were in his position, would you have run out to the press minutes after it happened so they can get their sound bites? Maybe he didn't because he is genuinely concerned about his friend that is lying in a hospital and he knows it was his fault. VP or not, I would not put making sure the press got their soundbites first, second, or tenth on my list of things to do. There will be time for that later on.
I'm really not holding this against him, and I hope you didn't get that sense from my post. In fact, I stated that there were press accounts about that, but that I didn't care. And I don't. My original statement on it was that "when his friend is out of danger, I hope that..." So, you see, I really didn't need to hear from him immediately. If I'd shot a friend of mine accidently, I would tell the press (politely) that I had other concerns and would talk to them when I knew that my friend was going to be okay.
Note that I meant it when I said he gained favor in my view. I said this would be an opportunity to show his character, and I think he took the right approach.
I still don't like him, but I was expecting this to be another episode where I just came away shaking my head. In fact, his statements sounded genuine to me, and made him much more human-seeming than I heretofore would have believed.
As I said, I still believe him to be a malignant force in American politics and would hope to see him gone from his position at the earliest possible date, barring physical harm to his person.
But that doesn't mean that I'm so blinded by my recollection of his past misdeeds to fail to give him credit when he does something right.
I find no fault at all with how he handled this situation. Post-shooting, of course. I find great fault with his behavior that lead to the shooting. I don't wish to see him prosecuted for it (talk about a waste of government resources!), but I wanted, and got, a message from him that I hope will be heeded by others regarding firearms safety.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
There's stuff on the net that says that there is at least one member of Cheney's party who said that they were drinking leading up to the shooting, but quickly forgot about that little tidbit. I guess I'm curious whether the authorities aren't supposed to do a breathalyzer or something as soon as something like this happens?
Also, there is rumor that neither of the women were married to Cheney or the other guy, and that one of the women, the Swiss ambasador, is Cheney's mistress. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess I'm curious whether the authorities aren't supposed to do a breathalyzer or something as soon as something like this happens?
Outside a car, where by getting a license one is presumed to have consent to a breathalyzer, it's hard to do personal searches like that.
It's not like transportation accidents where immediate intoxicant tests are performed. There has to be probable cause and almost definitely a warrant, and there's little time for that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...
They could always go to the FISA court and get one after the fact.
Or just do it without a warrant since there was a foreigner present.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Oh, good grief. If Cheney had held a news conference immediately after the shooting, the press corp would have excorciated him for caring more about politics / spin control than about the person he wounded.
As for his relationship with the former ambassador to Switzerland and Lichtenstein, the "liberal"blogs are so into chasing a STUPID story that they are totally missing what is being waved in their face. Lichtenstein: Home of the secretly owned corporation. Walk in as yourself, and walk out with a second untraceable "person" to act as your financial surrogate. Switzerland: Home of the numbered bank account, of untraceable financial transactions. Combine the two for a perfect vehicle with which to conduct illegal business. Is it probable that Cheney has a secret second "person"hood? No. And implausible in terms of one held for his own benefit. But at least it would be an interesting speculation to investigate / rumor to spread.
[ February 17, 2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Outside a car, where by getting a license one is presumed to have consent to a breathalyzer, it's hard to do personal searches like that."
Even for drivers, that type of personal search is bit more difficult than simply asking. In most jurisdictions, an officer has to have probable cause before requesting a breathalyzer or blood test. Hence checking* for pupil dilation, then coordination testing. Even failing those indicators of sobriety, one can refuse the more definitive tests. Of course, refusal alone can be used as grounds to suspend a license. But can does not always mean will. And even the likely license suspension for refusal can be a better alternative than a conviction for drunk driving -- though officer testimony concerning pupil dilation and coordination is often held as conclusive inregard to driving while impaired -- or worse. Many traffic infractions carry a MUCH stiffer penalty if driving while drunk/drugged is found to be a co-factor. In terms of future insurance rates, it would be better to just take a license suspension rather than have a drunk/drugged driving on ones record. And proof of use of an illegal drug or illegal use of a prescription drug alone can lead to a serious misdemeanor or felony conviction.
* One reason why an officer will ask, "Have you been drinking?" A "Yes, I had a bottle of beer..." or similar statement -- even if followed by "...an hour [or more] ago." -- is considered to be grounds to request a breathalyzer or blood test.
[ February 17, 2006, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Cheney misfires on public relations after shooting: experts
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Vice President Dick Cheney badly handled an exercise in damage limitation after shooting a hunting partner and could now become a case study for future politicians, experts say.
"This is a classic one," said political analyst Larry Sabato.
"It will be studied as one of the big ones -- an example of how a modest mishap goes completely out of control," said Sabato, head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
In US politics, where spin and image control are crucial skills, the handling of the controversy has shocked many experienced White House hands.
The vice president has said he accidentally shot lawyer Harry Whittington, 78, during a quail hunt Saturday on a Texas ranch.
The one-day delay in announcing it to the public -- and the way it was announced by the ranch owner to a local newspaper -- stunned many observers.
Cheney only spoke publicly about the incident, which he called "one of the worst days of my life", in a television interview on Wednesday -- four days after the event.
"He had an obligation to disclose it himself, and he should have done so Saturday night or Sunday morning," said Ari Fleischer, a former spokesman for President George W. Bush.
"The vice president has brought this on himself and on the White House."
He added: "It would have been a serious story, but it would have been a one-day story, with a follow-up on the gentleman's health."
Marlin Fitzwater, who was White House spokesman from 1987 to 1992 under the administration of the elder George Bush, told Editor and Publisher magazine he was "appalled" by the administration's handling of the story.
He also said the story should have been made public straight away.
"It would have been the right thing to do, recognizing his responsibility to the people as a nationally elected official, to tell the country what happened," Fitzwater added.
"It would have been confined to the vice president. By not telling anyone for 24 hours, it made it a White House story," Fitzwater told the magazine. "It becomes a story about the White House handling of it."
Cheney's interview with Fox News Channel on Wednesday has also been criticised as too little, too late.
~ continues ~
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"It would have been confined to the vice president. By not telling anyone for 24 hours, it made it a White House story," Fitzwater told the magazine. "It becomes a story about the White House handling of it."
I find this confusing.
The press is so self-referential and over-impressed with their own importance that I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the complaints.
18 hours, most of them overnight hours when most people are sleeping, to release information that is essentially historical. Yes, it's important we know about the incident because it involves the VP. But it's not like this requires timely action by anyone.
They're pissed that they got scooped and didn't get catered to. The media should give it a rest.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:They're pissed that they got scooped and didn't get catered to. The media should give it a rest.
A news conference is the usual method that such things are reported. That venue gives full and consistent detailed coverage to a story. Publishing a report in a local newspaper meant that there was at least a delay in disseminating the story, and contributed to the confusion surrounding it.
The sense that I get with these opinions (by these Republican PR professionals) is that the appearance of a cover-up, by under-reporting the story and the delay, was more the problem than the actual accident.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The sense that I get with these opinions (by these Republican PR professionals) is that the appearance of a cover-up, by under-reporting the story and the delay, was more the problem than the actual accident.
I think they're right about how it looks in the current system.
My problem is with a media system and sense of entitlement that makes this appear to be a cover up.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
This is what the media and some of the rest of us are upset about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And we have a vice president who treats a hunting accident like a nuclear secret.
If that's what he's upset about he can calm down, since clearly this didn't happen.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm glad that the press advisors that seem to be weighing in on this are all GOP stalwarts. I personally don't think the issue over delays is that big a deal, but I can understand how it has harmed the image of the party as being forthright and open, or whatever.
It's all well and good to talk about the press being upset, but what they're reporting is statements from past GOP presidential press secretaries. If those folks are having a negative reaction, it's news!
News worthy of reporting, IMHO.
If it was a bunch of partisan sniping, I could see where it could be more easily written off, but when you have Bush's prior press guy, his dad's press guy, and Reagan's press guy all criticizing how this was handled, I have to submit that this can't just be chalked up as the press getting pissy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The NBC correspondent's reaction in the press conference and the Post's editorial were essentially bratty tantrums.
I don't think this is partisan at all. I think our press has run amok with self-importance.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And to what motivation do you ascribe the reaction of the previous Republican Presidents' press secretaries?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First-hand knowledge that the press has run amok with self-importance.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Really? They are criticizing the VP for not coming forward sooner because failure to do so feeds the press' self-importance?
I guess I can see that. I was interpreting it as that these people know how to handle news related to the White House and they feel that the VP made a miscalculation...with foreseeable effects.
Every government press advisor I've ever known personally actually WAS a press person, of some experience. They were pretty matter-of-fact about how the press operates and would work with their clients to manage that operation to the best possible outcome.
And it seems to me that our press is, if anything, a bunch of pansies since 9/11 and as a result have let the country down.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Really? They are criticing the VP for not coming forward sooner because failure to do so feeds the press' self-importance?
No, they are criticizing the VP for not recognizing that the press has run amok with self importance and will therefore skewer the White House for not coming forward sooner.
quote:I guess I can see that. I was interpreting it as that these people know how to handle news related to the White House and they feel that the VP made a miscalculation...with foreseeable effects.
That's how I'm interpreting it, too. They know that when the press feels slighted, they make you pay.
It's practical advice about the press.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kayla: This is what the media and some of the rest of us are upset about.
quote:To the degree this has metastasized into something more, it reflects disquiet over the closed nature of this administration and its utter disdain for the right of the people to know. And Cheney's claim, made in the Fox interview, that somehow this boils down to media pique at having been kept out of the loop, is silly. It seems to have escaped his notice that he is the vice president of the United States. What happens to him and the president is of national interest. How many other bicycle mishaps made national news last year? You have to ask yourself: If they're this closemouthed about a hunting accident, what kinds of secrets do they keep on matters that matter? What information should you and I have that we don't? What things should we know that we won't until it's too late?
Good point - thanks Kayla.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No one in authority is talking about charging Cheney with a crime. But Cheney and Rogerson share the ignoble distinction of succumbing to what hunters (and lawyers) call "buck fever." It is a phenomenon as old as hunting, defined by the Random House dictionary as the "nervous excitement of an inexperienced hunter upon the approach of game." Yet experienced hunters have also been known to cut down neighbors they have mistaken for bucks, ducks and other quarry.
Buck fever is a recognized defense for negligent hunters, particularly youths. When a teenager shot a local businessman dressed in orange during deer season, he was excused from civil liability because of buck fever, despite the absence of any known species of orange-colored deer.
The law governing hunting accidents has long been controversial. This is the one area where citizens routinely shoot and kill other citizens without civil or criminal penalty -- or even the loss of a hunting license. Indeed, most cases of accidental shootings are viewed as reasonable mistakes by hunters and often it is the victim who is blamed for failing to give a hunter a wide berth. Even in the few cases where criminal and civil charges are brought against hunters such as Cheney, they are often tried by a jury of their peers: jurors from communities where hunting and hunting accidents are a way of life.
That's what saved Rogerson from prison. Karen Wood had only been out in her backyard for a minute, leaving her year-old twin girls in her house, when Rogerson shot her in the chest with a .30-06 rifle. Despite a 4X power scope and a distance of only 188 feet, Rogerson insisted that he mistook Wood for a deer he had seen -- though a game warden found no tracks or other evidence.
This reiterates my desire for a strict liability misdemeanor for shooting someone. I'd also like th standards which seem to be required for criminal negligence or recklessness to be found to be slighly lowered.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
lol, after watching some Olympic coverage on MSNBC Maurie and Connie came on. They spent an entire segment mocking the Corpus Christi Times and how its stories were not as important as the stories posted in the New York Times. They even had blow ups of the front pages showing the main stories.
If that is not having a hissy fit, I don't know what is. To mock a paper because it has stories of local interest (in addition to national stories) is just being petty. Of course, some of it likely comes from the fact that the big national papers are struggling, and local papers are actually doing very well financially, and at keeping their target audiences right now might have something to do with it.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
Four days into the Dick Cheney shooting spree, I received a call from Fox News, inviting me to be a guest on “Your World with Neil Cavuto.” The afternoon’s debate topic, said the producer, would look at the Cheney shooting from a different angle: “When this story’s all over, will it make Democrats look bad?”
Can you imagine? As I reminded Cavuto on the show: “Cheney goes hunting without the proper license, fails to observe standard gun safety rules, shoots a man in the face, doesn’t talk to law enforcement officials until the next morning, covers up the story for almost 24 hours before having a friend leak it to a local newspaper, then says nothing more for four days until he pops up with a one-on-one softball interview on Fox News. And Democrats are the ones who look bad?” That’s a stretch, even for Fox News!
---
As former Republican White House Press Secretaries Marlin Fitzwater (Bush 41) and Ari Fleischer (Bush 43) observed, the Texas hunting incident could not have been handled any worse. If only Dick Cheney had listened to . . . George W. Bush. While out on a hunting trip when he was governor of Texas, Bush accidentally shot a protected song bird and had to pay a $70 fine. After consulting with then-adviser Karen Hughes, Bush decided the best way of handing it was simply to fess up. “I then called every reporter who had been on the trip,” writes Bush in his 1999 autobiography. “In the end, it did not hurt, and it may have helped.” It’s one case where Dick Cheney could have benefited from listening to George Bush — assuming, of course, he listens to Bush about anything at all.
excerpt
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, the continual use of the word "cover-up" should make them look bad, as should ridiculous statements such as "None of us could tell the sherrif to come back tomorrow." (something I've seen elsewhere)
If Cheney had done such a bad thing after the shooting (and I mean ethically bad, not bad spin-handling), then there wouldn't be a need to seize on these ridiculous issues. Especially trying to make someone look bad for exercising a constitutional right concerning interaction with the police.
It's getting so tiresome. They've turned inadequate media saavy into a moral failing.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
HollowEarth - lighten up - a sense of humor is a good quality to have.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
So shoot me - Oooops, wrong thread!![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)