News US Vice President Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter

[Gokul43201]

Aren't quail slow and fat though??

No, that's Quayle !

 

[BobG]

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.

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.

Yes, the accidents are almost always the fault of the shooter. Mistakes by the shootee may make it easier for the shooter to make a mistake, but it's still the shooter's mistake. But anyone can make a mistake. The best you can say is that you've been shooting for over 40 years and haven't shot a person ... yet.

The flap over who told the press and when is ridiculous. This isn't exactly the kind of story that warranted "we interrupt your regularly scheduled program". The fact that there is an issue about how the info was released is pretty indicative of how low politics has fallen.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He didn't have the right permits either:


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

I think this borders on absurd...

In and of itself it's nothing. But it is sooooo classic that Cheney would hunt illegally; to act as if above the law.

It seems that the shooting victim has had a heart attack. There may be a pellet near the heart.

 

[Moonbear]

It seems that the shooting victim has had a heart attack. There may be a pellet near the heart.

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]

I noticed the same thing about the ICU business... thought maybe this was just over-compensation due to Cheney's involvement.

 

[rachmaninoff]

What if he dies?

 

[Orefa]

What is the implication if the victim dies? What offense would the VP be charged with, and would he have to resign?

 

[edward]

Originally Posted by edward
Firearms accidents happen very frequently. This incident is the first time that I have seen Cheney look almost human.

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.

And I have been hunting for over 50 years without shooting someone. My post was an attempt at dry humor which you apparently misunderstood. Cheney normally live in a real of secrecy.

BTW the guy cheney shot has now suffered a heart attack believed to have been brought about by pellets in his heart.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/14/whittington-heart060114.html

 

[Moonbear]

What is the implication if the victim dies? What offense would the VP be charged with, and would he have to resign?

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.

Part II to your question is whether he would have to resign if that happened. Again, if someone knows better than me on this, step in, but I don't think he would have to resign unless convicted. On the other hand, would he be pressured to resign voluntarily if a criminal trial interferred with his ability to perform his duties? I certainly don't know the answer to that, but suspect that at the very least, his political opponents would make a call for his resignation.

 

[turbo]

And I have been hunting for over 50 years without shooting someone. My post was an attempt at dry humor which you apparently misunderstood.

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.

Many of the recent press releases stress that Dick Cheney is an "experienced hunter". If he had grown up in my family or in my home town, his "experience" would have been exemplified by his ability to put some food in the freezer. The fact that a millionaire frequently gets invited to game ranches and gets to shoot at animals does not make him "experienced".

 

[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]

 

[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?