News US Vice President Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter

[Cyrus]

The man had 1 beer with his lunch. WHOOP-DE-DOOOO rachmaninoff.

 

[turbo]

The man had 1 beer with his lunch. WHOOP-DE-DOOOO rachmaninoff.

The man says that he had 1 beer at lunch. That may be true, but if you shot a member of your hunting partner and told the police that maybe you'd show up sometime the next day to answer questions, they would be hunting you down, and if you managed to elude them until your BA level subsides, the DA would make a huge deal about it and would likely convince a jury of your guilt. In my state, failure to report a serious accident promptly and submit to drug/breatholizer/blood alcohol tests is regarded as a tacit admission of guilt. Texas might be different.

Cheney might very well be telling the whole truth, but the failure to report the accident and submit to questioning in a timely manner suggests otherwise. We are constantly being told by the Bush administration that their invasions of our privacy are for our own good and that Americans with nothing to hide have nothing to fear. If Cheney had nothing to hide, why did he not meet immediately with the local police to establish that beyond a doubt?

 

[edward]

Lets lay the cards on the table, unless Cheney fired a round that was meant for much larger game,(heavier and larger buckshot) there is no way in hell that a number 8 bird load could have penetrated to the mans heart at 30 yards.

At thirty yards the shot pattern would also have been spread out to over three feet in diameter. The farther the shot goes the wider the pattern spreads. The news has been showing a mockup of a much smaller pattern on the victims head neck and chest. It has been stated numerous times that it was a number 8 buckshot fired from a 28 gauge shotgun at thirty yards.

30 yards is near the outer limit for a 28 guage, or any shotgun using a number 8 birdshot, to kill a bird, let alone penetrate to a mans heart.

It would have had to been closer to 30 feet than 30 yards. The man was also approaching from behind. No sensible hunter would swivel that far to his rear to make a shot.

 

[turbo]

You may have also noted that the "spokesmen" at the hospital refer to a number of 6 to 200 pellets embedded in the victim's body. Who here believes that they have not X-rayed the victim to determine how many projectiles are embedded in him and where they are located? The lies are quite transparent. He took a pretty heavy hit at very close range. I wouldn't use #7-1/2 or #8 shot on Maine's ruffed grouse, since they are heavily feathered and hard to bring down in cold weather with anything less than #6 shot. How do you cause pellets to penetrate the guy's hunting vest and other clothing and penetrate all the way to his heart? The official story cannot be true. It is not possible.

 

[Cyrus]

Jesus, enough with the conspiracy theories. If the man were covering up what he did, do you think he would have said he had 1 beer with his lunch?

He explicitly stated:

"The image of him falling is something I'll never ever be able to get out of my mind," Cheney said. "I fired, and there's Harry falling. It was, I'd have to say, one of the worst days of my life at that moment."..."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 agreed that ranch owner Katharine Armstrong should make the story public, because she was an eyewitness, because she grew up on the ranch and because she is "an acknowledged expert in all of this" as a past head of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

As for what bullets he had been using, I think between him, his friend and the woman, and their combined years of experience that they knew what they were doing. Even if he was closer than 30 yards, so what? It obviously was not intentional. Cheney shot where he shouldn't have, but the guy was standing where he shouldn't have. They were both part of the problem.

You can't cover up something you admit to be at fault with. He does not have to run off to the press after what happened. He has a right to keep quit about it if he wants to. Its none of the publics business what he does in his private life.

 

[edward]

Jesus, enough with the conspiracy theories. If the man were covering up what he did, do you think he would have said he had 1 beer with his lunch?

One beer and what meds?? Most of the heart meds do not mix well with alcohol. There is no conspiracy accusation on my part exept that apparently no one has told truth. First it was no alchohol, then one beer, then??

 

[Moonbear]

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.

You quote my statement, but you're making comments about the delay speaking to the press. My comment did not address the delay speaking with the press, but the delay speaking with the POLICE. That is a significant difference.

It is not pointless speculation to discuss the potential legal ramifications that may face the Vice President of a country when he shoots someone. The outcome of that could be quite serious. Clearly the injuries Whittington sustained are more serious than alluded to in the initial statements made as well. Any other hunter who had such an accident would be the subject of a criminal investigation, police are involved in investigating this as well. Whether or not the VP is found to be criminally negligent remains to be seen, but it is not far-fetched to consider the possibility.

Just to cite some sources unrelated to the Cheney shooting incident to show this really is potentially a criminal offense, the likelihood being even greater considering he did not have the proper stamps to hunt the birds he was hunting, which means the accident happened while committing another unlawful act.

Note in the first reference that even an accidental discharge that does not result in an injury can be a felony if charges are pressed.
http://www.gunlaw.com/accidents.phtml
http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Feb/1/128598.html
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/Digest/newHTML/19922621.htm
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvtx/1031773.txt
In that last case, the situation is very similar to Cheney's except it was deer hunting. The person shot did not announce his presence, and the shooter didn't know he was there, and accidentally shot him when aiming for a deer (or mistaking him for a deer...it's not clear which happened). Whether or not it ultimately led to a conviction, I don't know since this is just the appeals court sending it back for re-trial, but the point is that the charges were made and it went to trial.

Of course, this varies from state to state, so I'm still trying to find out what the standard is in Texas. Unfortunately, as soon as I add Texas to my search terms, it's hard finding anything unrelated to Cheney's hunting accident, since that's the popular story right now.

This is the best I've found so far to sum up the situation:
http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Articles/articles17.asp

Lee v. Hartwig, 848 S.W.2d 496 (Mo. App. 1993)
The user of firearms is held to the highest standard of care. Even then, it is up to the jury to determine whether he breached that standard of care in mistakenly shooting another hunter he mistook for a turkey. Absent an admission by the shooter that he breached this duty of care, there is no presumption of negligence. See Hendricks v. Broderick, 284 N.W.2d 209 (Iowa 1979). Other jurisdictions have adopted a presumption of negligence in which the shooter may be held liable as a matter of law for misperception of the target. See Green v. Hagele, 595 P.2d 1159 (Mont. 1979) and Watson v. State Farm, 469 So.2d 967 (La. 1985).

Again, this is why it is significant and newsworthy, not because the reporters' feelings are hurt that they got scooped by some little, local paper. We're not even discussing the for and against criminal charges being brought up (I have no doubt some are cheering for it while others are hoping it will just quietly go away), but that, as a matter of law, it is a real possibility given the known circumstances of the accident, regardless of the other speculation of what might have contributed to it.

 

[Cyrus]

One beer and what meds??

Well, I was speculating when I said that.

But none the less, having 1 beer with your lunch is NOT what I could consider being irresponsible.

First it was no alchohol, then one beer, then??

Prove it then. He said he had 1 beer, and the authorities did not contest him on his statement. Can you justify saying that he had more than 1 beer?

 

[turbo]

Jesus, enough with the conspiracy theories. If the man were covering up what he did, do you think he would have said he had 1 beer with his lunch?.

Let's get real. I have said that the official story does not hold up (a lie) and you have responded that I and others who have some experience with firearms (I organized the highest-grossing firearms auction ever held anywere in the world, BTW) are conspriracy theorists. Visit this site and get some perspective on the effectiveness of small shot.

http://www.ballistics-experts.com/Forensic%20ballistics/Wound%20&%20Terminal%20ballistics/Overview.htm

Shotguns are widely believed to be very lethal, and at close range this is certainly true because the multiple projectiles cause multiple wound tracks over a small area – often resulting in one large hole. However, the pellets must be large enough so that each one has sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate to vital areas. Basically, bird shot (7 1/2, for example) can only be guaranteed to be lethal to a range of about 5 yards, beyond 10 yards, or so, the wounds may look severe, but be relatively superficial due to the lack of penetration of individual pellets. Large buckshot pellets will be lethal at considerable range, but practical accuracy, and excessive spread, will limit their effective range to around 40 to 60 yards, depending upon choke and individual weapon characteristics. Those who choose to cut down their shotgun barrel diminish lethality considerably, because they may reduce the overall kinetic energy delivered by a given cartridge by as much as 50%.

 

[Moonbear]

You may have also noted that the "spokesmen" at the hospital refer to a number of 6 to 200 pellets embedded in the victim's body.

That one has had me pretty baffled too. That's a pretty wild range. Maybe Whittington should be preparing a malpractice suit against his doctors too if they can't narrow the number of pellets down a bit more than that; afterall, how can they know they aren't presenting a danger if they don't even know how many are there?

 

[Moonbear]

Let's get real. I have said that the official story does not hold up (a lie) and you have responded that I and others who have some experience with firearms (I have organized the highest-grossing firearms auction ever held anywere in the world, BTW) are conspriracy theorists. Visit this site and get some perspective on the effectiveness on small shot.

http://www.ballistics-experts.com/Forensic%20ballistics/Wound%20&%20Terminal%20ballistics/Overview.htm

An M.D. interviewed last night by MSNBC (I only caught the tail-end of the interview, so can't say who he was or where he practices, so I will assume he isn't directly involved in treating Whittington, but someone asked to give an "expert" analysis of what's being reported as benefit of the doubt here), claimed the depth of penetration and pattern of injuries described is most consisted with the distance being around 15 yards.

 

[Cyrus]

Since you are an expert in the area of firearms tubro-1, would the type of gun he used be a factor? Let's say he was shooting with an old high power shot gun. Would that still be impossible?

 

[Loren Booda]

What if he had been shooting with a yard glass?

 

[Moonbear]

Jesus, enough with the conspiracy theories. If the man were covering up what he did, do you think he would have said he had 1 beer with his lunch?

Yes, it would make any trace of alcohol detected later explainable. Some of the reports are also saying there "may" have been a cooler with some beer, but nobody is saying anyone drank any of it; I ask you, how likely is it to bring along a cooler of beer and not drink any? Armstrong also reports he made a cocktail for himself when he returned to the house after the accident, which means that testing his blood alcohol at that point would have been useless. It's another reason cops don't like to wait to interview people involved in a case like this. If he had done nothing wrong, then why not talk to the cops immediately so they could see for themselves that he was stone-cold sober when it happened?

Also at issue was the time of day of the accident. They say it was near the end of the day, but still daylight. What does that mean? Was the sun setting already? What was visibility like? Was the sun already low enough to either cause a potentially blinding glare, or to be too dark to see clearly?

Now, it's entirely possible that this IS being actively investigated by the local police, in which case, it may not be permissable to release too many details at this time. But, if that's the case, then such a statement itself can be made, along the lines of, "We cannot comment due to this being an active investigation." Cheney does still have the right to not incriminate himself in public if there is reason to believe any public statements could have that outcome.

 

[turbo]

There is no such thing as an "old high-power" shotgun. Over the years, shotguns have been chambered for longer and longer shells. You might find a gun from the 1920's that was chambered for 2-1/2" shells, but those chamberings have progressed from 2-5/8, 2-3/4" and so on until today we expect a standard chambering of 3" with chamber/barrel metallurgy capable of handling heavy pressures without deformation.

Quail hunting is popular in the south, and small gauges are popular (20 and 28 gauge are standard). People who want to achieve wider shot patterns can buy "spreader loads" in which the geometry of the wad (the container that carries the shot) can help give a wide distribution of pellets that can increase your success. This is quite helpful to hunters who stalk without dogs, since the birds tend to flush very close to you when you approach them. If Cheney was using standard loads, he shot his buddy at pretty close range. If he shot him with a spreader load, it was practically at point-blank range. I feel sorry for Cheney as a person. I also feel sorry for us as a nation, when there is one set of laws for regular people and another set for the aristocracy.

 

[Cyrus]

If he had done nothing wrong, then why not talk to the cops immediately so they could see for themselves that he was stone-cold sober when it happened?

But the SS are federal officers of the law, no? Their word should equivalent to a police report. (Provided they witnessed what was going on.)

I feel sorry for us as a nation, when there is one set of laws for regular people and another set for the aristocracy

That’s nothing new. Hell, justice is mainly determined by how much money you have. That's how messed up the system is. Most cases are thrown out if the DA does not think the case is winnable. They don't try a case because it’s the 'right' thing to do.

 

[Moonbear]

But the SS are federal officers of the law, no? Their word should equivalent to a police report. (Provided they witnessed what was going on.)

It's not their jurisdiction, and there's a clear conflict of interest on the part of those serving the VP.

 

[turbo]

But the SS are federal officers of the law, no? Their word should equivalent to a police report. (Provided they witnessed what was going on.)

Unfortunately, no. They are empoyees of the treasury department, under full control of the administration. They have no accountability to "we the people."

That’s nothing new. Hell, justice is mainly determined by how much money you have. That's how messed up the system is. Most cases are thrown out if the DA does not think the case is winnable. They don't try a case because it’s the 'right' thing to do.

Can't we try to change this? Must we accept is as the status quo?

 

[Moonbear]

Let's get real. I have said that the official story does not hold up (a lie) and you have responded that I and others who have some experience with firearms (I organized the highest-grossing firearms auction ever held anywere in the world, BTW) are conspriracy theorists. Visit this site and get some perspective on the effectiveness of small shot.

http://www.ballistics-experts.com/Forensic%20ballistics/Wound%20&%20Terminal%20ballistics/Overview.htm

The pictures on that site all say they are 12 gauge #6 shot. Cheney was supposedly firing a 28 gauge, #7 1/2 shot. Do you have anything that would show the type of spread or depth of penetration of that at different ranges?

 

[turbo]

The pictures on that site all say they are 12 gauge #6 shot. Cheney was supposedly firing a 28 gauge, #7 1/2 shot. Do you have anything that would show the type of spread or depth of penetration of that at different ranges?

#7-1/2 shot is far smaller that #6 and has far less kenetic energy. You may want to do a little Googling on this. The administration line is a lie.

 

[Cyrus]

The pictures on that site all say they are 12 gauge #6 shot. Cheney was supposedly firing a 28 gauge, #7 1/2 shot. Do you have anything that would show the type of spread or depth of penetration of that at different ranges?

Awww, moonbear is so cute when she asks about the lethatlity range of various firearms. Your my kind of woman, that's why you got Roses AND a teddy bear :)

Can't we try to change this? Must we accept is as the status quo?

Yes, but then we will utterly swamp the DA's office, the legal system will get jammed, and it will cost John Q Tax payer a lot more money.

 

[Moonbear]

#7-1/2 shot is far smaller that #6 and has far less kenetic energy. You may want to do a little Googling on this. The administration line is a lie.

Yeesh, you're going to make me do my own homework? Okay...I was hoping you might have better leads than just Googling, but off to Google I go.

Edit: Drat! No luck googling. I can't believe the sites I did find but definitely nothing of value in terms of forensics or anything like that.

 

[edward]

Yeesh, you're going to make me do my own homework? Okay...I was hoping you might have better leads than just Googling, but off to Google I go.

Edit: Drat! No luck googling. I can't believe the sites I did find but definitely nothing of value in terms of forensics or anything like that.

Here is a start. He was probably using an improved cylinder on his $11,000 Italian shotgun. The problem I am having is with the 30 yard distance that has been repeatedly stated. From my personal experience there is no way that there could be penetration to the upper chambers of the heart at that distance.

The shot would have had to come from above and travel down from above the collar bone. The weapon Cheney was using has two barrels with one mounted above the other. (over and under). Some of these guns have an auto safety, some don't. Once the hammer is cocked the trigger can be pulled to a stop and the first barrel will fire. The second barrel cannot fire until a selector switch is moved, the trigger must now be pulled further back to fire the second barrel. I see a possibility that Cheney had already fired once and accidently shot Whittington with the second barrel.

The safety would have been off after the first shot and switching to the second barrel is more or less automatic for an experienced hunter.

Normally a #8 shot would be used for quail, but some people do use a bigger shot for gambrel quail. The shot size gets bigger as the number goes lower. A number six shot is about 1/8 the size of a BB. That is why there are so many of them in a shell. 28 gauge shells usually use 3/4 to 1 ounce of shot.

http://www.rfgc.org/reload/pattern_density_calc.htm

 

[Geekster]

I thought that the pellet entered a blood vessel, and that is how it made its way to the heart. If that's right, then everything is in line with the story given. Otherwise I would agree there is NO way a quail load would have the necessary penetration to reach a persons heart when fired from 30 yards away.

 

[Moonbear]

I thought that the pellet entered a blood vessel, and that is how it made its way to the heart. If that's right, then everything is in line with the story given. Otherwise I would agree there is NO way a quail load would have the necessary penetration to reach a persons heart when fired from 30 yards away.

Nope, that part isn't very consistent at all. The pellets would be too large to travel through the blood vessels into heart muscle, and if it hit a large enough vessel to wind up in the chambers of the heart, there would have been some massive, very life-threatening bleeding to accompany it. It would have had to penetrate the chest cavity somewhere. (I am familiar with the size of bird pellets...I know people who hunt and have dug the pellets out of grouse and pheasant...not quail...to cook them, even though I don't hunt myself, so don't know the finer details of distances and hunting safety and such).

Edward, you said a 28 gauge shotgun shell usually has about 3/4 to 1 oz of pellets in it. That site that turbo-1 linked to earlier had information about the pellets, and said that for #7 1/2 pellets, there would be about 350 pellets in an ounce. So, if they're estimating anything up to 200 pellets are in Whittington, that's a pretty high percentage of the pellets he took...sounds like a pretty direct hit, not just getting hit by some scattering pellets as might be more the case if he was just a bit to the side and not clearly in view yet when Cheney fired. How do you miss seeing someone in the direct line of fire? That difference between 6 and 200 makes a heap of difference in how you interpret just how much Cheney could have foreseen this...was Whittington just out of peripheral vision and took some of the scattered pellets (though, again, if Cheney's peripheral vision is that bad, he still has no business hunting), or was he directly in front of Cheney where Cheney should have seen him and held fire?

 

[Geekster]

Nope, that part isn't very consistent at all. The pellets would be too large to travel through the blood vessels into heart muscle, and if it hit a large enough vessel to wind up in the chambers of the heart, there would have been some massive, very life-threatening bleeding to accompany it. It would have had to penetrate the chest cavity somewhere. (I am familiar with the size of bird pellets...I know people who hunt and have dug the pellets out of grouse and pheasant...not quail...to cook them, even though I don't hunt myself, so don't know the finer details of distances and hunting safety and such).

Well it can be read either way...

Here is the artical I'm talking about

Whittington was reported doing well at a Texas hospital Wednesday after doctors said that a pellet entered his heart and that he had what they called caused “a mild heart attack.”

One pellet from Cheney’s shotgun — a pellet just under one-tenth of an inch in diameter — traveled to Whittington’s heart. Hospital officials said the Texan had a normal heart rhythm again Wednesday afternoon and was sitting up in a chair, eating regular food and planning to do some legal work in his room.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11361657/page/2/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think they mean "traveled" as it entered the body.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You know, I really wonder about unknown quantity of pellets. Did I miss something here...I don't see how they could not know. I'll have to ask Tsu about this. A CT scan would full of artifacts, but I would think that a guess far better than 6-200 could be made in any event. If nothing else I would think a flouro would tell you.

Oh wait, if they are still using lead shot they may be hard to see...

but then again, what about all of the entry wounds?

 

[edward]

Well it can be read either way...

Here is the artical I'm talking about

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11361657/page/2/

I keep coming up with conflicting articles. My morning paper said the pellets were touching the heart.

A pellet striking the heart can cause those problems, but it is not normally thought of as a heart attack, said Dr. Samin Sharma, chief of interventional cardiology at New York's Mount Sinai Medical Center.

"What probably happened is the pellet hit the heart and the heart released some enzymes" associated with a heart attack, he said. "It usually has a very good prognosis.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/health/orl-cheneymed1506feb15,0,4591187.story?coll=orl-health-headlines

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It appears that Texas law only requires that steel shot be used over water; at least I found a number of people who say so.