Damn right he was scared! Cheney already tried to murder him once, you just know that he wouldn't hesitate to kill him for something so apparently simple as a hunting accident. I mean, we all know how pure evil this administration is, I wouldn't put anything past them! I bet Cheney was sitting next to his hospital bed, whispering into his ear of all the terrible things that would happen to his family if he blamed the VP.Amp1 said:
Calm down minion of the Bush cult.Dawguard said:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/02/mcclellan_grill.html
How many believe the announcement would have been initiated by the White House?
Minion? Of the Bush cult? I hate the Bush cult: along with pretty much every other politician out there. I was just mocking the extremists who are ready to believe anything bad about the right wing. I mean, do you really think that Bush would have killed the hunter just to prevent the story from getting out? Come on, quit the conspiracy theories, it was a simple accident.SOS2008 said:
Fair enough about conspiracy theories. At the same time, the Bush administration has done nothing to create a warm and fuzzy feeling of trust, so suspicion will abound.Dawguard said:
moose said:
edward said:Firearms accidents happen very frequently. This incident is the first time that I have seen Cheney look almost human.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_hunting_accident_38;_ylt=Ak2g2PxKzg1BbbwZKy8rxdJqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl"
Firearms "accidents" are almost always due to the failure of the firearms users failure to use due diligence. I have been hunting for over 40 years and have not yet shot another person. If you have a different standard of excellence, I pity the people who accompany you on a hunt.edward said:Firearms accidents happen very frequently. This incident is the first time that I have seen Cheney look almost human.
Ivan Seeking said:
No, that's Quayle !Pengwuino said:
How many people has Cheney shot before this? It's at least 50-50 that he had you beat for number of years hunting without shooting someone ... at least until last weekend.turbo-1 said:
rachmaninoff said:
That would explain why he started out in the ICU. The first round of news out on the story sounded like the guy was hurt, but not seriously...just superficial type skin wounds, but then yesterday's stories were saying the guy was OUT of ICU and stable, which implied he had not been stable on arrival and the injuries were serious enough to warrant being sent to ICU in the first place. It would also explain the delays between the time of shooting and getting the guy to the hospital if it was serious enough that they were trying to stabilize him on the scene, which was another oddity in the initial reports. And, it definitely explains the delay in reporting...if the guy is in ICU and you don't know if he's going to live or die, I can totally understand the press office waiting to see which way it was going to go before making any official statement. I mean, it's a very different story if the VP killed somebody in a hunting accident vs shot him and he's stable and recovering well. Personally, I don't have a problem with them waiting a day on this. I didn't really need regular programming interrupted with round-the-clock coverage of "The VP shot someone and that's all we know, but we're going to keep interrupting regularly scheduled programming to remind you of that every half hour."Ivan Seeking said:
turbo-1 said:
Cheney normally live in a real of secrecy.I think you've hit on the important question here, and the reason this becomes so newsworthy. I think that's also why, in the reports out so far, the local law enforcement officers make a point of noting that alcohol was not involved, because alcohol would have suggested negligence (just like killing someone while drunk driving). If it is determined this was a foreseeable or preventable accident, and the victim dies, there could be charges of negligent homicide. I think that's the importance of the ongoing police investigation, to determine if there was real negligence to bring up such a charge, or if it really wasn't something the VP could have predicted or avoided. I also think that's the highest offense it could be. Unintentional manslaughter would have required he had been made aware of the risk and went ahead and did something risky anyway... or at least that's my understanding of the distinction. If someone here is more familiar with the legal definitions of negligent homicide vs unintentional manslaughter, I will defer to them.Orefa said:
Please accept my apology. Bird hunting is generally a quick-response activity (quick flushes, large angular sweeps on the part of the targets), and because of that it requires extra diligence and awareness on the part of the shooter. I hunt ruffed grouse without the use of dogs, and in cold weather they hold cover until you are almost on top of them, then explode out of cover. This kind of hunting would be very dangerous if you were hunting in a group in which some members were not cognizant of the dangers and the ways to avoid them. I have hunted this way with friends and family members all my life and have never shot anyone, nor been shot, nor know of any of the group who has shot another person.edward said:And I have been hunting for over 50 years without shooting someone. My post was an attempt at dry humor which you apparently misunderstood.
Why the negotiated delay? A cynic could make the point that the delay was designed to let Cheney's blood alcohol level decline to the point that it would not be considered a contributing influence under state law. That couldn't happen, could it? A few very politically powerful individuals out hunting, and tipping a few?Moonbear said:
http://www.ussc.gov/2001guid/2a1_4.htm
Do you think the inherent risk in handling a loaded firearm is sufficient to qualify any hunting accident as negligence or recklessness? That's the part of the law that I'm fuzzy about.SOS2008 said:
Maybe he didn't have that information. That's the problem of having someone other than Cheney answering questions about this...if they stick someone out in front of the cameras without telling them all the details, he can honestly say that's all he knows, even if it isn't all that is known by others. But, Cheney's lawyers (well the ones he hasn't shot yet :tongue:) are probably advising him not to say anything...afterall, if it does turn into a criminal case, anything he's saying publicly could be used against him.
Well, a cynic could think up many reasons for negotiating a delay in talking to police. My mind hadn't run the route of blood alcohol screening, but instead to a more typical concern one might have in a delay investigating something like this...if you don't immediately separate people and interview them quickly, they have an awful lot of time to make sure all the stories match. I can't know that was done, but it's a legitimate concern when there's a delay in interviewing witnesses.turbo-1 said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/wonkette/20060118/en_wonkette/cheneytakingfashiontipsfromdcshomeless
OK. OK that is an old joke that has been around the southwest like forever.And I thought Republicans would blame it on Clinton somehow. I doubt there will be any resignation, especially considering how many times it has been far more deserved. And keep in mind that Congress must approve any appointment (because of lack of general election).WarrenPlatts said:
I would say it would be involuntary manslaughter based on risk that constitutes “a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in such a situation” but that would be the most that could be charged (aside from permit dispute).Moonbear said:
Right--Aside from possible coaching of witnesses for interview (which BushCo has never done beforeMoonbear said:
), what I was saying was even after all the brew-ha about the delay in reporting the incident, they did it again. Scotty knew about the heart attack before the Press Briefing held later that day, yet did not mention it and acted as if there was no new news.I guess that's the part I'm fuzzy about; what is a "gross deviation?" Obviously there was a deviation, someone got shot, but is it a "gross deviation?" How is that legally determined?SOS2008 said:
While it would seem any physical disability that may have prevented him from being completely safe operating a firearm would go toward making a case for criminal negligence, somehow I don't think that factored in here. I think if he had shot the guy because he lost his balance due to poor footing, he would have said that, because it would have been much more believable as an accident than that he just didn't see him.edward said:
Have you ever been to Washington? These are not mutually exclusive statements.cyrusabdollahi said: