posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
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.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
"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.
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
What an awful time for everyone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
