News US Vice President Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured Harry Whittington during a quail hunting trip in Texas, with Whittington reported to be recovering well. The incident raised concerns about Cheney's recklessness and potential legal liability for the shooting, as some believe he failed to ensure the safety of those around him before firing. Discussions also highlighted the responsibilities of hunting groups to communicate and maintain awareness of each other's locations to prevent accidents. The role of Secret Service agents present during the incident was questioned, as they are expected to monitor safety in such situations. Overall, the incident sparked debates about gun safety and the implications of careless firearm use.
  • #121
A doctor estimated that Whittington had more than five but "probably less than 150 to 200" pellets lodged in his upper body, including one in his heart
http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-janensch0216.artfeb16,0,4783219.column?coll=hc-headlines-life

Well, having over thirty years of medical imaging and ER experience, which includes who knows who many gun shot victims, Tsu's reaction to this is: WTF!

Oh yes, and they should be easy to see; even the small ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
rachmaninoff said:
Bob said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobG
(Four is the maximum number of objects a person can keep track of without resorting to counting.)
Source?...[/color]
From One to Zero by Georges Ifram.

Iframs is a secondary source, but I don't have the book with me to check the footnotes. He refers to it when explaining the development of number systems. In essense, the first numbering systems were usually base 5 instead of base 10 - usually a special mark on a counting stick to differentiate between the 'ones'; also similar to the practice of making four single marks and making the fifth mark a diagonal mark through the previous four single marks.

You could also check it yourself by placing different numbers of dots in a group and only letting a viewer glance at the group of dots (you don't give them time to count). In my experience, the experimental data only roughly conforms to the theory. There's a dropoff in the number of people that can correctly identify the five dot groups, but not a huge dropoff. You really notice the difference by time you get to the six dot groups and beyond.
 
  • #123
Some answers as to how the event happened.

Cheney said the accident happened after Whittington stepped out of the hunting party to retrieve a downed bird in deep cover. Cheney said he and a third hunter walked about 100 yards away to where another covey had been spotted. Immediately after he shot at a bird flying to his right, he said he saw Whittington in his line of fire.

"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."

He said Whittington was dressed properly in blaze orange and the upper part of his body was visible, but that he was standing in a gully with the sun behind him, which affected his view.
from Yahoo/AP
 
  • #124
Ivan Seeking said:
Well, having over thirty years of medical imaging and ER experience, which includes who knows who many gun shot victims, Tsu's reaction to this is: WTF!

Oh yes, and they should be easy to see; even the small ones.
The "6 to 200 pellets" that the short heavyset doctor has cited in TV interviews several times is laughable. Imagine that the Vice-President has just shot someone, and you (the doctor) don't bother to X-ray the victim to determine if the injuries are life-threatening...remember that the victim is a rich lawyer who just might be willing to sue if his medical care is sub-standard. That doctor knows how many pieces of shot are embedded in the victim and where they are - he is not divulging this because it would quickly become evident to any hunter that Cheney's story is bogus. 28 gauge is a very small-bore shotgun, so you don't get as many pellets in a load as you would in a larger bore. The typical 3/4 oz load of 7-1/2 pellets is about 260 pellets, so if the victim has anywhere near 200 pellets in him, Cheney got him close-up with pretty much the full load. Certainly not 30 yards out - the pellets would have barely penetrated the man's clothing and skin at that range.
 
  • #125
turbo-1 said:
The "6 to 200 pellets" that the short heavyset doctor has cited in TV interviews several times is laughable. Imagine that the Vice-President has just shot someone, and you (the doctor) don't bother to X-ray the victim to determine if the injuries are life-threatening...remember that the victim is a rich lawyer who just might be willing to sue if his medical care is sub-standard. That doctor knows how many pieces of shot are embedded in the victim and where they are - he is not divulging this because it would quickly become evident to any hunter that Cheney's story is bogus. 28 gauge is a very small-bore shotgun, so you don't get as many pellets in a load as you would in a larger bore. The typical 3/4 oz load of 7-1/2 pellets is about 260 pellets, so if the victim has anywhere near 200 pellets in him, Cheney got him close-up with pretty much the full load. Certainly not 30 yards out - the pellets would have barely penetrated the man's clothing and skin at that range.
I don't think 6 pellets would have even been enough to be described in the mild, "He got peppered pretty good," terms that Armstrong has been cited as saying.

Something else that occurred to me...Armstrong has been quoted as saying that Whittington didn't call out or alert the VP in any way that he was coming up from behind, but I noticed that they've pointed out that Armstrong was sitting in the car, not out on the field with the hunting party. How could she know if anyone called out if she was in a car? He could have called out and she didn't hear anything. Also, if she was in the car, how much of a view did she really have of what happened? I'm starting to question if they let her release it to the press and be the main "witness" for them because she didn't really witness enough for anything she states to hold up in court. Am I confusing witnesses, or didn't she say in the early reports that when she saw medical personnel running to the scene, she thought it was Cheney's heart? If so, then she didn't see ANYTHING if she didn't know they were rushing to the scene because someone was shot.

Ah, yes, here it is, in one of the earlier cited articles:
Armstrong said she saw Cheney's security detail running toward the scene. "The first thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem," she told The Associated Press.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_hunting_accident_38;_ylt=Ak2g2PxKzg1BbbwZKy8rxdJqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #126
i can't believe you guys devoted 9+ pages to discussing thevice president shooting an attorney
 
  • #127
cronxeh said:
i can't believe you guys devoted 9+ pages to discussing thevice president shooting an attorney
Probably because it's one of the few threads left to post in. Everything else is locked :smile:
 
  • #128
cronxeh said:
i can't believe you guys devoted 9+ pages to discussing thevice president shooting an attorney
No surprise. The possible legal ramifications of this event are politically important.
 
  • #129
And from what I gather from these posts there is the appearance of a deliberate shooting emerging.
 
  • #130
Moonbear said:
I don't think 6 pellets would have even been enough to be described in the mild, "He got peppered pretty good," terms that Armstrong has been cited as saying.

Something else that occurred to me...Armstrong has been quoted as saying that Whittington didn't call out or alert the VP in any way that he was coming up from behind, but I noticed that they've pointed out that Armstrong was sitting in the car, not out on the field with the hunting party. How could she know if anyone called out if she was in a car? He could have called out and she didn't hear anything. Also, if she was in the car, how much of a view did she really have of what happened? I'm starting to question if they let her release it to the press and be the main "witness" for them because she didn't really witness enough for anything she states to hold up in court. Am I confusing witnesses, or didn't she say in the early reports that when she saw medical personnel running to the scene, she thought it was Cheney's heart? If so, then she didn't see ANYTHING if she didn't know they were rushing to the scene because someone was shot.

Ah, yes, here it is, in one of the earlier cited articles:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_hunting_accident_38;_ylt=Ak2g2PxKzg1BbbwZKy8rxdJqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

The bold text in your post is one big AH HA! You should have been a dectective. Maybe like an anti Columbo.

It is obvious that she was told what to say by someone. Of course it must be just a coincidence, but since the "shooting incident" there has been nothing in the news about the NSA and the secret spying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #131
edward said:
The bold text in your post is one big AH HA! You should have been a dectective. Maybe like an anti Columbo.

Too many leaps for Columbo. Armstrong says she saw what happened leading up to the shooting, not the actual shooting itself.

Amp1 said:
And from what I gather from these posts there is the appearance of a deliberate shooting emerging.

Of course, only from these posts. Not from, say, the local sheriff, the Secret Service or the Parks and Wildlife Department.
 
  • #132
crazycalhoun said:
Too many leaps for Columbo. Armstrong says she saw what happened leading up to the shooting, not the actual shooting itself.
Which is why she is useless as a "witness" of the shooting.
 
  • #133
Amp1 said:
And from what I gather from these posts there is the appearance of a deliberate shooting emerging.
Not a deliberate shooting, but a well-orchestrated cover-up of a negligent shooting.
 
  • #134
turbo-1 said:
Not a deliberate shooting, but a well-orchestrated cover-up of a negligent shooting.

That's how it strikes me as well. The story just doesn't seem to add up.

This morning they announced that a 64 slice CT has been completed [they take a few minutes now] and they may release the images if the family doesn't object.

Something else: This has clearly shaken Cheney. His typical cocky tude isn't shining through any more. I have never seen him like this.
 
Last edited:
  • #135
Here is a look at some of those questions: Why didn't the White House notify the public immediately Saturday night that the vice president accidentally shot a man? Cheney makes it clear that it was his decision to wait almost a day to go public. But he doesn't indicate why top Bush aides like Karl Rove - and even President Bush himself - appear to have deferred to him on it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.question16feb16,0,2970154.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

The only thing we have to fear from Cheney is Cheney himself.:wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #136
crazycalhoun said:
Too many leaps for Columbo. Armstrong says she saw what happened leading up to the shooting, not the actual shooting itself.
So if she didn't see the shooting itself, she's in no position to comment on what happened and is not a witness to the shooting; all she is presenting is hearsay. What events DID she see if she didn't actually see the shooting beyond the hunting party getting out of the car if she was sitting in the car?

Of course, only from these posts. Not from, say, the local sheriff, the Secret Service or the Parks and Wildlife Department.
No, not from these posts either. Nobody here is saying it was in any way deliberate, but very careless, yes. Do you really think the local sheriff or DA aren't asking these same questions? Of course, they may actually be getting answers, but we sure aren't.
 
  • #137
Keeping to friendly territory as always, Cheney was interviewed on FOX News. Good old Scotty--He kept repeating that the American people consider the case closed. Yet the story is still #1 in the news, and the MSNBC poll (granted it's not scientific) shows that 71% of Americans feel the incident remains very important.
 
  • #138
David Gerken stated that this will likely cost Cheney some power. Talk about poetic justice! Even if he did absolutely nothing wrong, it's going to cost him.
 
  • #139
Whittington apologizes for shooting Mr. Cheney:

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - His face marked with tiny birdshot wounds, the lawyer shot by Vice President Dick Cheney while quail hunting left a hospital Friday, saying "accidents do and will happen" and apologizing for the trouble the incident had caused the vice president.

"My family and I are deeply sorry for everything Vice President Cheney and his family have had to deal with," Harry Whittington said, his voice a bit raspy but strong in his first comments since being shot on a South Texas ranch six days earlier.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney

Oops! I meant to say, Whittington apologizes for being shot by Mr. Cheney. The other way around makes no sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #140
Whittington's apology is more than a little mind-boggling, isn't it?
 
  • #141
Not really. He was partly at fault as well. He should not have been standing there. They were both at fault.
 
  • #142
What's new about this:confused: :confused: Adrew Jackson killed a person
Jackson's wife, Rachel, died of a heart attack just 2 months prior to his taking office as President. She had supposedly divorced her first husband, Col. Lewis Robards; but there were "questions" about the legality of the divorce. Jackson deeply resented attacks on his wife's honor; he killed Charles Dickinson in a duel over a horse-racing debt and an insult to his wife on May 30, 1806. Jackson was also injured during the duel, and the bullet was so close to his heart that it could never be safely removed. It caused him considerable pain for the rest of his life. Jackson blamed John Quincy Adams for Rachel's death, because of the marital scandal being brought up in the election of 1828. He felt that this had hastened her death, and never forgave Adams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Family_and_personal_life
Same with Burr
The duel was the final skirmish of a long-lived conflict between Democratic-Republicans and Federalists. The conflict began in 1791, when Burr captured a Senate seat from Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's father-in-law, who would have supported his federalist policies (Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury at the time). When the electoral college deadlocked in the election of 1800, Hamilton's maneuvering in the House of Representatives caused Thomas Jefferson to be named President and Burr Vice President. In 1800, Burr published "The Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States," a document highly critical of Adams, which had actually been authored by Hamilton but intended only for private circulation. When it became clear that Jefferson would drop Burr from his ticket in the 1804 election, the Vice President ran for the governorship of New York instead. Hamilton campaigned viciously against Burr, who was running as an independent, causing him to lose to Morgan Lewis, a Republican endorsed by Hamilton. Some say Hamilton believed that Burr had entertained a Federalist secession movement in New York.
:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton-Burr_duel

This is simpily your everday aveage poltics.There's nothing new it's just "accident" in some countries they kill the other presidential canidates.
 
  • #143
GeorginaS said:
Whittington's apology is more than a little mind-boggling, isn't it?

Not at all. How can this be made into positive spin for Cheney? Sympathy. I predicted this but never posted. Still, how else could they play this?
 
  • #144
uh, come again? (scott1)

Not at all. How can this be made into positive spin for Cheney? Sympathy. I predicted this but never posted. Still, how else could they play this?

Give me a break. Two men who respect each other and are friends and both say they are sorry for being at fault. My freaking god, people taking account for their actions and you call it a cover up. Not talking to the media as soon as possible and you call it a cover up. You guys hold unfair double standards. Maybe he should just throw himself in jail to please the rest of you, but I am sure you would find some way to call that a cover up for his guilt too. :rolleyes: just :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #145
cyrusabdollahi said:
Not really. He was partly at fault as well. He should not have been standing there. They were both at fault.

Frankly, I think that is all a bunch of bull and they know it. Cheney was right when he said that he pulled the trigger so he is responsible. This is always the first rule in using a gun. But that doesn't make Cheney a bad guy in all of this, in itself. At best it does seem to show a momentary lapse in judgement. You don't fire unless you know the shot is clear. That is unavoidable here.
 
Last edited:
  • #146
Does anyone else think that Bush looked uncomfortable when making his comments on this? I keep thinking of what Gergen was saying. He expects to see Rice up front again.

I wonder if Cheney is already reduced to a fixture on his way out; but not over this, of course.
 
Last edited:
  • #147
Does anyone else think that Bush looked uncomfortable when making his comments on this?

Well, Cheney went behind his back and dealt with the issue in regards to the media based on his own group of people, and not the presidents group of people. That was his fatal error. He side stepped the president.

You don't fire unless you know the shot is clear. That is unavoidable here.

Yes, we all know that. He thought the shot was clear or he obviously would never have taken it (The guys been shooting all his life, do you think he's an amateur?). It was a bunch of small mistakes that lead up to one big mistake. Cheney ant going no where.
 
Last edited:
  • #148
cyrus, yes, I think the guy is not a "skilled" gun person at all. It doesn't take much skill to shoot fish in a barrel. And shooting wingless, tame quail, who have been raised for the purpose of being released into an enclosed area so that gutless people can drive up and shoot them aren't "skilled folks" in my eyes.

Yes, Ivan, the sympathy spin was inevitable. On the Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other evening, they showed the bit about Cheney saying how it was the worst day of his life. Jon Stewart leaned forward, chin in hands and said, pretty much, "Aww, yes, it's all about you. Poor you. What a bad day you had. Mind you, it was no where near as bad as the day of the guy who you shot in the face."
 
  • #149
cyrusabdollahi said:
Yes, we all know that. He thought the shot was clear or he obviously would never have taken it

No such thing as thinking the shot was clear. You either know or you don't. There is a difference between thinking and knowing. Also, a little googling would reveal that experienced hunters are the ones most likely to shoot someone by accident. They get careless.

My point is that this is just a ploy for the sympathy card for Cheney. It helps make him look like a victim.
 
  • #150
Yes, I agree that he got careless. How is making a public apology a ploy for sympathy? That’s called taking responsibility. I thought he did the right thing to take the blame for it. Any descent human being should feel sorry for a guy that feels bad for mistakenly shooting his friend. I would have been more offended had he not publicly taken responsibility and apologized. He gave an honest heartfelt appology, and so did his friend. They handeled it quite well in that regard.
 

Similar threads

News Mr. President: Coffins ? Bring Them On ?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K