The discussion centers around an incident where Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot fellow hunter Harry Whittington during a quail hunting trip in Texas. Participants explore various aspects of the incident, including gun safety, potential legal implications, and personal anecdotes related to hunting experiences. The conversation touches on themes of recklessness, responsibility, and the broader implications of such actions.
Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the implications of Cheney's actions or the responsibilities involved. Some agree on the recklessness of the shooting, while others defend the circumstances surrounding it. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the legal and ethical dimensions of the incident.
Participants reference various laws and personal experiences that may not universally apply, indicating a dependence on specific contexts and definitions. The discussion includes anecdotal evidence that may not fully capture the complexities of hunting safety and legal responsibility.
Well, I suppose if Cheney were a Democrat and wanted to be on friendly territory he could have just picked some names out of a hat instead.SOS2008 said:
Being a Republican, his choices were more limited.In a recent press release it was stated that Cheney was an experienced hunter and had been hunting for at least 12 years. Being squired around at private hunting preserves is somewhat different from "hunting" - it's more like a golf outing with firearms.cyrusabdollahi said:
Where he was not supposed to be? Everybody has got to be somewhere, and when you're hunting in a group you as a hunter are responsible for being aware of the locations of the other parties. If you are hunting birds and you are returning to the group after retrieving a bird, you do not holler "hey, I'm coming back!" and spook a covey that your companions are going to flush. You return quietly to the group and resume the hunt. If a member of your party has fallen back to retrieve a bird, you do not swing around and shoot in his direction. The victim is not to blame for this incident, despite Armstrong's statement about Whittington not announcing his presence - that is just lame.cyrusabdollahi said:
Exactly! Actually, the significance of Whittington's apology, as absolutely absurd as it was (I'm sorry sir, I didn't mean to be in the way of your gunruss_watters said:
), is that it indicates Whittington is pubicly stating he's probably not going to sue Cheney over it, so at least civil litigation isn't likely. There was some reason to question this on the part of the public. In the Fox news interview, they asked Cheney if he considered Whittington a friend or acquaintance, and Cheney said he's an acquaintance. In other words, they're not necessarily best buddies and no guarantee Whittington was going to protect his best buddy's back by not suing. Where was Whittington supposed to be?! He had left the group to go retrieve a bird. Everyone knew this. He had to re-join the group at some point, and if he was searching around tall grass looking for the bird, he could have returned from any direction. This was a bad error in judgement on Cheney's part (and anyone else with him), to move on and keep hunting without knowing where a member of their party was. I find it appalling at a very personal level that anyone is trying to blame Whittington for being the victim here. I respect that Cheney, in his own statement, did claim full responsibility. Whether he's sorry for it or not, or thinks he would have done anything differently or not if in the same situation again, he at least acknowledged that he is the one at fault. Unless Whittington jumped out in front of the gun deliberately, it is not Whittington's fault.Cyrus said:
Well, I'm not sure how visible he was at the moment of the shot, because he was also described as being down in a ravine or gully (I don't recall exactly which it was) and the sun being behind him. My best estimate of the time frame of the incident based on Cheney's statements in the Fox interview is that it happened around 6:30 PM...he said the ambulance left for the hospital about 7 PM, and it was about a half hour from the time of the accident until the ambulance was ready to leave. At that moment in time, I don't expect anyone was staring at their watches, so give or take 15 min or so.Orefa said:
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html
There are unknowns for sure but in the absence of complete details I just go by his own words: "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." If he could see him fall, surely he could see him stand. If he had taken time to look of course, which evidently he didn't in his rush to kill a bird.Moonbear said:
But everyone knew he walked away to get the bird. That's been stated by everyone involved, he left to look for the bird that fell in tall grass. Even if he didn't say it out loud, everyone can see that one of the three people there who just shot a bird walked off to find one, and wasn't with them as they moved to a new spot. There were 10 people on the property hunting that day, but only two of those, plus a guide, were with Cheney that day...that's according to Cheney's statements, not the myriad other press reports. Why on Earth are you making excuses and trying to blame Whittington? It wasn't like everyone walked together to the new spot, and then while Cheney was focused on the birds, Whittington decided to wander off somewhere else without a word. Of course, who is the person really pushing the issue of trying to blame Whittington from the outset? It wasn't Cheney, it was Armstrong. Why would she be likely to blame Whittington? The accident happened on HER property, where she had allowed someone without the proper hunting stamp to hunt. She is not an unbiased source here...she could also be held responsible as the property owner unless she can somehow show that the victim was responsible for his own accident, and that there was nothing she could have done to prevent it. We can't assume she's saying these things to protect Cheney when she could very well be protecting her own hide here.cyrusabdollahi said:
Sorry it was a joke.cyrusabdollahi said:uh, come again? (scott1)
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.
It isn't necessarily to say the vice-president misrepresented the truth, though his account differed from what the ranch owner reported. With a history of drinking including two DUIs, and a history of secrecy "a better idea would be to get the vice president’s communications operations together with the president’s communications staff, and get something out, something on the wire, right away.” - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11396608/Orefa said:
http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/02/the_week_that_w.html
This, to me is the most noteworthy thing about this case.SOS2008 said:
Source : http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060213-4.html#b
Source : http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/13/national/main1312809.shtml
Source : http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8FOJVV03.html
According to this Time poll, 56% don't think Cheney was trying to cover anything up. 
So, maybe this wasn't just a private outing for the VP, but could have been official business? The VP spending a day out with a lobbyist and a prominent lawyer...you know, even if they really are just all friends, they had to know how this would look when it came out, and they'd be very naive to not think it would be found out. A political figure REALLY needs to think through all the interpretations and appearances of what they say and do and address them upfront, or else it does lead to an ever-worsening scandal.SOS2008 said:
The track record of secrecy is why this administration was under suspicion in the first place, and sure enough it was justified. Too bad so many Americans still support BushCo with delusional naiveté. I'm beginning to think it wouldn't matter even if it involved sex.Moonbear said:
SOS2008 said: