News US Vice President Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter

[turbo]

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.

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?

 

[SOS2008]

Alcohol does not have to be involved, whether an auto accident or what have you, if there is a fatality for example:

Man charged with manslaughter in hunting death
From the AP WIRE Today's stories
Saturday, January 29, 2005 4:30 pm
Associated Press

BANGOR, Maine — A 20-year-old Newport man has been arrested and charged with manslaughter after he fatally shot a friend in the chest while hunting deer from a tree stump, police said.

Adam Nason was charged in Penobscot County Court with manslaughter, night hunting, hunting after having killed one deer, and false registration of a deer. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

If convicted, Nason faces up to 40 years in prison.

2001 Federal Sentencing Guideline Manual

§2A1.4. Involuntary Manslaughter

(a) Base Offense Level:

(1) 10, if the conduct was criminally negligent; or

(2) 14, if the conduct was reckless.

Commentary

Statutory Provision: 18 U.S.C. § 1112. For additional statutory provision(s), see Appendix A (Statutory Index).

Application Notes:

1. "Reckless" refers to a situation in which the defendant was aware of the risk created by his conduct and the risk was of such a nature and degree that to disregard that risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in such a situation. The term thus includes all, or nearly all, convictions for involuntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1112. A homicide resulting from driving, or similarly dangerous actions, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs ordinarily should be treated as reckless.

2. "Criminally negligent" refers to conduct that involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances, but which is not reckless. Offenses with this characteristic usually will be encountered as assimilative crimes.

http://www.ussc.gov/2001guid/2a1_4.htm

Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987 - before the Road Traffic Act 1991 for auto accidents. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_dangerous_driving

Nonetheless, the way events are handled and reported continues to be a legitimate issue. Even after all the initial criticism, the hospital advised the White House of the heart attack the morning before Scott McClellan’s White House Press Briefing, which started after 12PM. Yet McClellan suggested to reporters that he didn't have any new information.

Even Ari Fleischer said "It could have and should have been handled differently." The problem is this sounds all too familiar where this administration is concerned.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Now we know why Cheney never joined the Army. At least his shotgun isn't as dangerous as Ted Kennedy's car. But it is a sign that he may be losing his cognitive abilities. This is not going to go away. If Cheney was thinking about running in 08, this blows that chance. My bet is that Cheney will have to resign sooner or later over this just to get the press to shut up because this is a big embarrassment for the Republicans. So, the next question is who is Bush going to pick to replace Cheney? Condi?

 

[Moonbear]

Alcohol does not have to be involved, whether an auto accident or what have you, if there is a fatality for example:

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.

Nonetheless, the way events are handled and reported continues to be a legitimate issue. Even after all the initial criticism, the hospital advised the White House of the heart attack the morning before Scott McClellan’s White House Press Briefing, which started after 12PM. Yet McClellan suggested to reporters that he didn't have any new information.

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 ) 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.

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?

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.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't think the man drinks, he has heart problems.

 

[edward]

I remember Cheney had surgery in Sept. for blocked arteries behind both knees. As of Jan. 6 he was making appearances wearing two different styles of shoes and walking with a cane supposedly due to a foot problem.

Vice President Dick Cheney wears two types of shoes and uses a cane for support while awarding combat action badges to soldiers during a rally at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., Friday, Jan. 6, 2006. Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman who is traveling with the vice president, said he was experiencing a reoccurrence of a ‘pre-existing foot condition

http://news.yahoo.com/s/wonkette/20060118/en_wonkette/cheneytakingfashiontipsfromdcshomeless

Should he have even been hunting? And come to think of it, as someone already mentioned, where were the secret service agents? Perhaps the secret service needs to have some training on proper hunting protocol.

Just think, this could have been the other way around and Cheney would have been on the receiving end of that shotgun blast.

As for alchohol, I think it is a requirement that all hunters in the state of Texas be slightly innebriated. Or was that just vehicle drivers.? OK. OK that is an old joke that has been around the southwest like forever.
http://www.lawyers.ca/international/drinkingdriver.asp?state=Texas&province=TX

 

[SOS2008]

At least his shotgun isn't as dangerous as Ted Kennedy's car.

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).

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.

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).

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.

Right--Aside from possible coaching of witnesses for interview (which BushCo has never done before ), 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.

 

[Moonbear]

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).

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?

I'm also wondering if it could be considered obstruction of justice to have prevented the police from interviewing Cheney and others immediately? Maybe not, but considering the potential ramifications of criminal charges being brought against Cheney, these are the issues I think are most important, rather than the White House reporters worrying that they got scooped by some local paper in TX.

 

[Moonbear]

Should he have even been hunting?

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.

 

[turbo]

I don't think the man drinks, he has heart problems.

Have you ever been to Washington? These are not mutually exclusive statements.

 

[SOS2008]

Good points made on all the above Moonbear.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't think the man drinks, he has heart problems.

Have you ever been to Washington? These are not mutually exclusive statements.

Joking aside, you're right, heart problems don't preclude someone from drinking, and certainly can be a result of long-term alcohol abuse. I'm still not convinced we have any reason to believe he was inebriated. So far the reports have all stated that alcohol was not a factor. Since this is one of the few things that have been stated clearly as an affirmative statement, I think it's reasonable to assume the police reporting this are correct, however they made that determination.

 

[McGyver]

State Laws Require Hospitals to Notify Police in Event of Shooting

It doesn't surprise me they held off on any formal announcement of the incident...first get the story straight, then make sure the guy he shot is doing okay so they can put that in the press release. 24 hours isn't really that long to get an official statement on something.

In my experience in California, state law requires hospital "emergency rooms" treating a gunshot victim to immediately notify local police - who then come immediately to the hospital to make a report. These reports are then public record. Picture this: You're in a hospital emergency room and a big entourage of people, secret service types, and police show up after rumors of an accidental shooting. How could any hospital keep this quiet? All it would take is one visitor who overheard, a nurse, ER employee to contact the news with "the biggest story of their life."

The decision to notify and file a police report on an accidental shooting is NOT a discretionary decision for any of the parties. And it doesn't happen the next day. It is initiated immediately after a shooting victim shows up at the ER.

I would assume, but I don't know for sure, whether Texas also has such a law. Failure to follow this state law protocol, if it were breached per Chenney's influence, would amount to an unlawful action and conspiracy.

I believe the above to be the most alarming aspect of this incident. Should the gentleman die, I suspect there would be a much more aggressive investigation than what has been undertaken publicly thus far.

 

[Cyrus]

Have you ever been to Washington? These are not mutually exclusive statements.

I have never been there, why? I don't think Cheney was hammering down a 6 pack and shooting at birds.....I don't like the guy, but I wouldn't make wild claims like that either.

Is this thread actually about anything, or are we just making wild claims with no factual basis?

Issue 1: Did he whisper mean things into the mans ear while in the hospital, threating to make him pay if he spoke up about the incident that put the Vice president in a bad light vis-a-vis the shooting incident? WRONG!

Issue 2: Willl ConD replace Cheney after this incident, resulting in his subsequent resignation? WRONG!

...BYE BYE!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

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).

Congress is Republican controlled. They will rubberstamp whoever Bush picks just like Alito and Roberts. And who is better positioned to be VP besides Ms. Rice? It would have to be somebody from within the administration. There are no Republican senators that could fill Cheney's shoes.

 

[Loren Booda]

Two (relatively unrelated) questions,

was everyone in the hunting party wearing bright vests?

does Vice President Cheney owe his bosses (the American public) the straight story when facing the laws of the United States?

 

[Amp1]

Interesting questions, LB.

A) I think that hunters are required to wear brights but there are experienced hunters making posts here and they would know better than I.

B) Yes, but as we already know, he is extremely secrective. Their probably brainstorming right now to 1. either deflect attention away or
2. to find a way to make the legalities inapplicable to him. He and the Bush admin has already shown that they think they're above the law of the land even though their rhetoric is usually the other way around. Example from a quote in a post by SOS #197

(Videotape, April 20, 2004)

PRES. BUSH: Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretape requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Did the president tell the truth?

REP. HOEKSTRA: The president told the truth in terms of if we are going to domestic to domestic, there is a court order. Obviously at that time, we in Congress knew, or at least the eight of us knew that if he was taking—if we were listening to al-Qaeda on one end calling into the United States, that there was not a court order, there was not a warrant.

MR. RUSSERT: The president never said domestic to domestic. He said, “A wiretap requires a court order. When you’re talking—when you’re tracking down—talking about chasing down the terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” So he’s suggesting to the American people that he is bound, as president, to get a court order. He was not saying, “I have inherent congress—constitutional authority to do what I want to do.””

 

[crazycalhoun]

Maybe this was all an accident, and who really cares if the press didn't get to have their feeding frenzy before the Sunday talk shows?

 

[Dawguard]

It is Enough

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.

Enough already!

I can't believe I'm the only one here who doesn't see a problem with the fact he didn't contact the press. It was a freakin' hunting accident, quit blowing it out of preportion! I thought this forum was designed for rational thought, and here we are sinking into baseless conspiricy theories. I could make virtually any claim or accusation I wanted to about the delay, from ghosts to aliens to assassinations. What happened to Occham's Razor, which I see frequently used in this forum? What makes more sense, a simple accident that happens many times each year, or some factless theory about drinking and cover-ups?
What would you do if you shot your friend with bird-shot? Would you give a damn if the press found out promtly? Let the press find things out on their own, it's their job after all. No one is obligated to talk to the press. The accident wasn't hidden, covered up, or obscured in any way. The press found out, nothing barred their way, they haven't discovered any lies about it. If the press is mad becuase they didn't find out for twenty four hours perhaps they should hire better sources.

I'm joining Cyrus in his plea for some mentor to lock this thread. Its gone on long enough with absolutely nothing in it except pointless speculation and ranting.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Maybe this was all an accident, and who really cares if the press didn't get to have their feeding frenzy before the Sunday talk shows?

I think the big issue with the 22 hour delay is that the White House tried to cover it up because Cheny is liable for negligence and they attempted to avoid this problem.

I mean, really, does anyone believe that this news did not arrive at the white house for that long of a time? Talk about inefficient. I think, if it is truly a delay of circumstances, it speaks volumes toward incompetence of the administrations ability to communicate

 

[Math Is Hard]

I can't wait for Saturday Night Live this weekend.

 

[crazycalhoun]

I think the big issue with the 22 hour delay is that the White House tried to cover it up because Cheny is liable for negligence and they attempted to avoid this problem.

Or maybe it was just a hunting accident, nobody's liable, and they didn't get to the conspiracy theorists because they don't care.

I mean, really, does anyone believe that this news did not arrive at the white house for that long of a time?

I do.

Talk about inefficient.

Inefficient at what, finding out that there was a hunting accident near Corpus Christi? Somehow I think the White House has other things to worry about.

 

[daveb]

I can't believe I'm the only one here who doesn't see a problem with the fact he didn't contact the press.

No you aren't the only one.

 

[crazycalhoun]

You can count me in, too.

 

[rachmaninoff]

I think it's ridiculous that people are calling for this thread to be locked - it covers a news event that is considered a top headline by many newspapers, the discussion has not degenerated into angry poltical flaming, and most of the post are not unreasonably speculative.

Occam's razor? The obvious explanation is right here in front of you. The VP accidentally shot a man, who has been in ICU for several days and suffered a heart attack. He may or may not have legal liability. The VP's office had delayed releasing news of this incidient (contrast with GWB's handling of the bicycle incident in Scotland); the WH press secretary (Scott) frustrated reporters by refusing to answer questions. Both these actions are widely considered controversial.

This isn't geopolitics, but if the NYT can make a headline out of this I don't see why PF should suppress this discussion as "unnewsworthy".

 

[Astronuc]

Fellow Republicans are urging Cheney to make a public statement, and apparently Cheney has accepted an interview with FOX News.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_17;_ylt=ApKlcPa0KGfiCU_xjK14NilqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

So let the man have his say.

I don't see the delay regarding notification of the press as being significant. I would imagine the people in Texas were more concerned about getting Whittington to the hospital and making sure he didn't die.

 

[SOS2008]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dawguard - I can't believe I'm the only one here who doesn't see a problem with the fact he didn't contact the press.

No you aren't the only one.

You can count me in, too.

Come on towns folk, git yer ropes. We have a hangin’ to tend to. Oh wait, that’s the mob that goes off half cocked when there is no evidence of a crime. This is funnier than the actual story.

I think it's ridiculous that people are calling for this thread to be locked - it covers a news event that is considered a top headline by many newspapers, the discussion has not degenerated into angry poltical flaming, and most of the post are not unreasonably speculative.

Occam's razor? The obvious explanation is right here in front of you. The VP accidentally shot a man, who has been in ICU for several days and suffered a heart attack. He may or may not have legal liability. The VP's office had delayed releasing news of this incidient (contrast with GWB's handling of the bicycle incident in Scotland); the WH press secretary (Scott) frustrated reporters by refusing to answer questions. Both these actions are widely considered controversial.

This isn't geopolitics, but if the NYT can make a headline out of this I don't see why PF should suppress this discussion as "unnewsworthy".

Agreed.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Aha! So he does drink!

"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."

Cheney said he had had a beer at lunch that day, but nobody was drinking when they went back out to hunt several hours later.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_19;_ylt=AtLIOekAZskaYYo6WUJJYV5qP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[BobG]

Should he have even been hunting? And come to think of it, as someone already mentioned, where were the secret service agents? Perhaps the secret service needs to have some training on proper hunting protocol.

Just think, this could have been the other way around and Cheney would have been on the receiving end of that shotgun blast.

I would imagine having extra people to account for did contribute to the accident. It's still the shooter's responsibility to know what lies in his line of fire, but it's a lot easier to lose track of an individual if you have to account for more than four. (Four is the maximum number of objects a person can keep track of without resorting to counting.) The proper response is to pay more attention and be a little more cautious, but it's still a lot easier to make a mistake in a big party.

 

[rachmaninoff]

(Four is the maximum number of objects a person can keep track of without resorting to counting.)

Source?...[/color]