Dick Cheney accidentally shoots man during hunting trip

[quote name='AFStealth']I don't see why Cheney would want to parade around telling everyone he shot a guy.[/QUOTE]


Um, it's Dick Cheney, that's why.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']involuntary manslaughter[/QUOTE]


Actually it could be more severe along the lines of voluntary manslaughter, it ultimately is determined by what the specific laws say in this jurisdiction. It did happen in Texas but since Cheney's one of the "good ol' boys" then the normally harsh system of Texas justice might not apply.

At the very least at this point there could be made for a case of assault with a deadly weapon. Common law assault is "intentional creation of reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of iminent bodily harm". Then again the county prosecutor probably doesn't actually have the balls to charge him.
 
Wouldn't the victim also have to testify? It's doubtful he wants to have Cheney see jail time.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Actually it could be more severe along the lines of voluntary manslaughter, it ultimately is determined by what the specific laws say in this jurisdiction. It did happen in Texas but since Cheney's one of the "good ol' boys" then the normally harsh system of Texas justice might not apply.

At the very least at this point there could be made for a case of assault with a deadly weapon. Common law assault is "intentional creation of reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of iminent bodily harm". Then again the county prosecutor probably doesn't actually have the balls to charge him.[/QUOTE]

Especially when it was an accident, nobody's balls are that big. Assault requires an intent to do harm in every jurisdiction I've even known. So does voluntary manslaughter. So, you're saying he meant to shoot this guy ? Let's hear your reasoning.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Um, it's Dick Cheney, that's why.[/QUOTE]

That has to do with what? Oh I get it, you lack reading comprehension.
 
That's what I was thinking. Yesterday it sounded like the wounds were fairly superficial and I was wondering why he was in the ICU but attributed that to his age. Now with the pellet lodged in his heart and others in his face that they aren't removing, this sounds a lot more serious than was let on yesterday.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Assault requires an intent to do harm in every jurisdiction I've even known. So does voluntary manslaughter. So, you're saying he meant to shoot this guy ? Let's hear your reasoning.[/QUOTE]

Bmulligan is either on crack or doesn't know what the hell he's talking about (or both).

Voluntary Manslaughter: also called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, arises when criminal liability as a homicide is imposed on those who kill:

either when they do not intend to cause death or serious injury but cause the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence; or where a person intentionally kills another but is not liable for murder either because he or she falls within the scope of a mitigatory defense, such as provocation or diminished capacity that will reduce what would otherwise have been murder to manslaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter
 
[quote name='AFStealth']That has to do with what? Oh I get it, you lack reading comprehension.[/QUOTE]


You're awesome.
 
Reckless endangerment

In civil court, Cheney would ave to pay massive damages.

If the guy died it would be negligent homicide, because he didn't have a permit or anything.


BUT...

Dick Cheney has executive privelage, so it's no biggie.
 
One aspect of this story worth questioning is the distance that Cheney was from the man he shot. The official story is that Cheney was 30 yards away, which is about the maximum firing distance for the gun/ammo he was using. If this was the case, though, then the man simply should NOT be as injured as he was - at 30 yards, the ammo would have used up most of its kinetic energy and done far less damage than it did. Another factor is how many shots he was hit with - this type of ammo disperses widely quite rapidly after being fired. At 30 yards, the man should have only been hit by a few random bits and pieces. Instead, they're reporting that they've had to remove more than 50 from the guy's face.

Its really looking like Cheney was a LOT closer than the distance he's claiming - experts in this type of gun/ammo/hunting are saying that it sounds like he was within 5 yards. Which would mean that Cheney is lying about what happened. Which brings up the quesiton of why, and probably answers the question of why they took so long to report what happened - they had to get their story straight.
 
[quote name='Drocket']One aspect of this story worth questioning is the distance that Cheney was from the man he shot. The official story is that Cheney was 30 yards away, which is about the maximum firing distance for the gun/ammo he was using. If this was the case, though, then the man simply should NOT be as injured as he was - at 30 yards, the ammo would have used up most of its kinetic energy and done far less damage than it did. Another factor is how many shots he was hit with - this type of ammo disperses widely quite rapidly after being fired. At 30 yards, the man should have only been hit by a few random bits and pieces. Instead, they're reporting that they've had to remove more than 50 from the guy's face.

Its really looking like Cheney was a LOT closer than the distance he's claiming - experts in this type of gun/ammo/hunting are saying that it sounds like he was within 5 yards. Which would mean that Cheney is lying about what happened. Which brings up the quesiton of why, and probably answers the question of why they took so long to report what happened - they had to get their story straight.[/QUOTE]

Interesting....
 
[quote name='Zoglog']lol turns out the bird shot has moved into the guy's heart. oh snap[/QUOTE]
Do you have a link to this?

Also, is there any credence to the Daily Show's assertion that Cheney was shooting caged birds?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Actually it could be more severe along the lines of voluntary manslaughter, it ultimately is determined by what the specific laws say in this jurisdiction. It did happen in Texas but since Cheney's one of the "good ol' boys" then the normally harsh system of Texas justice might not apply.

At the very least at this point there could be made for a case of assault with a deadly weapon. Common law assault is "intentional creation of reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of iminent bodily harm". Then again the county prosecutor probably doesn't actually have the balls to charge him.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='bmulligan']Especially when it was an accident, nobody's balls are that big. Assault requires an intent to do harm in every jurisdiction I've even known. So does voluntary manslaughter. So, you're saying he meant to shoot this guy ? Let's hear your reasoning.[/QUOTE]


I bolded the most relevant part of my post regarding intent. All you have to do is intentionally create the incident which there very little way to argue that he did not intentionally discharge that firearm.

I take it you've never read criminal law? You'll learn that intent-states in criminal law are far different than what you would typically think of as intent.
 
[quote name='kakomu']Do you have a link to this?

Also, is there any credence to the Daily Show's assertion that Cheney was shooting caged birds?[/QUOTE]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11340558/

It's near his heart. The doctors can't answer whether or not the pellet might move and become fatal. The shot was either touching or embedded in the heart muscle near the top chambers, called the atria,
 
[quote name='Drocket']One aspect of this story worth questioning is the distance that Cheney was from the man he shot. The official story is that Cheney was 30 yards away, which is about the maximum firing distance for the gun/ammo he was using. If this was the case, though, then the man simply should NOT be as injured as he was - at 30 yards, the ammo would have used up most of its kinetic energy and done far less damage than it did. Another factor is how many shots he was hit with - this type of ammo disperses widely quite rapidly after being fired. At 30 yards, the man should have only been hit by a few random bits and pieces. Instead, they're reporting that they've had to remove more than 50 from the guy's face.

Its really looking like Cheney was a LOT closer than the distance he's claiming - experts in this type of gun/ammo/hunting are saying that it sounds like he was within 5 yards. Which would mean that Cheney is lying about what happened. Which brings up the quesiton of why, and probably answers the question of why they took so long to report what happened - they had to get their story straight.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. See, the information that was initially available on Sunday night was that
it was at a long distance and it was with bird shot. Bird shot can be deadly at a close range but at longer ranges (such as 30 yards) it doesn't cause much damage (something like a regular BB gun would do at close range). If it was close range, it changes the story a LOT.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']If it was close range, it changes the story a LOT.[/QUOTE]

And the Bush administration is all about changing stories. :lol:
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']And the Bush administration is all about changing stories. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Yes but I'm not getting into the Bush conspiracy blah blah blah stuff.

The way this story has played out isn't a result of Cheney being in the Bush administration, its not even a result of him being republican. Its a result of Cheney being a politician, the same exact thing would be occuring if it was a democrat, independent, green party, or even communist party member. Plain and simple.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yes but I'm not getting into the Bush conspiracy blah blah blah stuff.[/QUOTE]

I think "conspiracy" entails some sort of "brains" or criminal mastermind, neither of which are attributed to this administration. I think more of this as just another f-up to add to the Bush administration resume.
 
[quote name='kakomu']Do you have a link to this?


Also, is there any credence to the Daily Show's assertion that Cheney was shooting caged birds?[/QUOTE]

It was a reference to a previous incident, where cheney (and others) were competing over who could kill the most birds. The birds were domestic and were being sent out of nets so cheney and buddies could kill them.

Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting trip to Westmoreland County this week is drawing criticism.

Cheney arrived at the Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in Latrobe on Monday to do some hunting at the Rolling Rock Club and Game Preserve -- a private club with farm-raised pheasants; but some say it was no hunt -- it was a slaughter.
"Your average hunter may shoot more than three pheasants a day; Vice President Cheney shot more than 70 -- and an untold number of mallards... We're appalled that so many animals were killed for target practice essentially."-- Wayne Pacelle, V.P.- Humane Society of the US​

Five-hundred pheasants were released in front of Cheney and his men; and the ten-man hunting party killed 417 of the birds. Vice President Cheney alone shot over 70 pheasants.

The birds were then plucked and vacuum-packed in time for Cheney's afternoon flight back to Washington, DC.

The hunt sparked the Humane Society to issue a statement chastising Cheney. "We're appalled that so many animals were killed -- for target practice essentially," says Humane Society Vice President Wayne Pacelle.
"To just slaughter animals that are dumped out in front of hunters just for the thrill of all this killing is not something that can be justified... this is more grisly than we ever could have imagined it could be."-- Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society​

The White House isn't commenting.
Click to expand...
http://kdka.com/local/local_story_344154903.html
 
there's a whole new set of laws involved with a "hunting accident" which is what it's classified as. Therefore I'm pretty sure if the guy does die it'll be played down to involuntary manslaughter.
 
The whole 'canned hunt' thing is absolutely disgusting to me. Its basically skeet shooting with real birds. Real hunting involves patience and skill - there's at least some respectability in that. Blasting away at birds that have been raised in cages is simply disgusting, blood-thirsty behavior.

And beyond the moral issues inherent in shooting domesticated animals for fun and pleasure is the scale: when you're talking about killing birds by the hundreds as a way to pass an afternoon...

Ultimately, the scale probably has a lot to do with why its done: can you imagine the cost involved in a hunt with 700 hand-raised birds? It has to be in the tens of thousands. I suspect that this is like a lot of the activities 'enjoyed' by the rich - it has a lot less to do with the actual activity than it does with the fact that most people simply can't afford it.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I think "conspiracy" entails some sort of "brains" or criminal mastermind, neither of which are attributed to this administration. I think more of this as just another f-up to add to the Bush administration resume.[/QUOTE]

Actually, all conspiracy entails is that 2 or more people agree to do something illegal. So, technically, you could still be part of a conspiracy even though you lack the cranial capacity to be a mastermind.
 
Cheney is sitting down for an interview with Fox News to be aired at 6:00 tonight. That should be a hard-hitting Q&A. :roll:

Q: Why did Mr. Wittington leap in front of you while you were about to heroically shoot that al Qaeda operative, I mean quail?

Let's guess what questions won't be asked:

1. Had you been drinking?
2. Why did the Secret Service not allow the local police to interview you for so long?
3. Do you think if you hadn't taken those five military deferrments, you would have learned to shoot better?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not just Fox News, but Weekly Standard editorial board member Brit Hume.[/QUOTE]
How will Brit ask a serious question with Cheney's cock in his mouth the whole time?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Cheney is sitting down for an interview with Fox News to be aired at 6:00 tonight. That should be a hard-hitting Q&A. :roll:

Q: Why did Mr. Wittington leap in front of you while you were about to heroically shoot that al Qaeda operative, I mean quail?

Let's guess what questions won't be asked:

1. Had you been drinking?
2. Why did the Secret Service not allow the local police to interview you for so long?
3. Do you think if you hadn't taken those five military deferrments, you would have learned to shoot better?[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Another question that won't be asked by Fox News: "how did a 30-yard blast cause the spread pattern and impact that is typical for a blast from only 5 yards away?"
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Actually, all conspiracy entails is that 2 or more people agree to do something illegal. So, technically, you could still be part of a conspiracy even though you lack the cranial capacity to be a mastermind.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely correct. I just typically attribute "conspiracy" to a coherent plan rather than a bungled-up story.
 
Evidently there is a pellet in his liver as well. I have read speculation that Cheney was drunk at the time which is why the authorities weren't allowed to talk to Cheney until the next day. Another possibility is that he was cheating on his wife and that that woman was a member of the hunting party. All speculation, of course.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Maybe whittington was trying to steal cheney's quayle?[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Is defense of personal property a right to kill in Texas?
 
Boy, this story just keeps getting better and better (which is to say worse and worse for Cheney.) Cheney now admits than he had 'a beer or two' during lunch (so, which is it? One or two? There's a big difference between one and two - if you really have to guesstimate when you're talking about the difference between 1 and 2, something is wrong), which contradicts his statement to the police that he hadn't been drinking. Gee, I wonder why he refused to speak to the police until the next day? (and can you imagine how that would work out with us common folk? "Yeah, I just shot a guy in the face, but I don't feel like talking to you right now. Come back tomorrow.")

It also now turns out that the 'primary witness', the one who's made most of the public statements about how this accident happened, was in fact 100 yards away, in a car, and not watching what happened. In fact, the first indication that she had that something was wrong was when 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.

Add all that in with the fact that the shot pattern and force simply is NOT consistent with the stated 30 yard range (the estimated range coming originally from the woman who was, in fact, not watching) - well, this story may last a while...
 
What is it with you conspiracy nuts?

Could be that it really was an accident. But no, since it's a Politician, the VP, and part of the Bush administration, it's got to be a conspiracy.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']What is it with you conspiracy nuts?

Could be that it really was an accident. But no, since it's a Politician, the VP, and part of the Bush administration, it's got to be a conspiracy.[/QUOTE]

I don't think there's anything outlandish about thinking that a member of an administration who's been so reluctant to release information on anything they're legislatively involved in (energy council, Katrina correspondence, secret prisons, rendition, Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo Bay, use of intelligence prior to Iraq invasion) should be similarly held suspect for shooting a motherfucker. Conspiracy? Holocaust denial is premised on conspriacy. Being drunk and shooting someone? That's playing the probability card, bebe.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']Could be that it really was an accident. But no, since it's a Politician, the VP, and part of the Bush administration, it's got to be a conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it almost certainy was an accident - because Cheney and company were drunk off their asses. They were screwing around, Cheney's gun went off and shot the other guy in the face at close range. They can't admit that Cheney was drunk off his ass (which is actually rather understandable - he had a REALLY bad week last week, what with it becoming public that he ordered Libby to break Plame's undercover status...) so they've decided to blame as much of it as they can on the other guy (rember kids, if you shoot someone - its probably their fault.)

I would guess that the main reason for the delay in reporting what happened (and why they didn't even tell the White House exactly what happened until the next day) was that they probably just about blew the guy's face off (getting 'peppered' by birdshot does not require 3 days in ICU, especially since he was in critical status the first day.) They probably figured there was a good chance he was a goner, so they needed some time to figure out the official story.

Whatever the specifics of what happened actually are, there's one thing for certain: the current story isn't the truth. It has severla major holes in it, it conflicts with the reality of Whittington's injuries, and its undergone several major revisions already (He wasn't drinking, ok, maybe a beer or two, yeah, I was right there and saw everything, but didnt know what was going on because I was in the car 100 yards away and wasn't watching, he was just peppered and was fine and laughed about what happened, except he was uncouncious at the time, etc, etc.)
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Can this administration get one fucking thing right before they leave office?[/QUOTE]

Like you could screw up as effectively as they do. This administration has unparalled expertise in the art of fucking up. The only thing left is to replace the "Hoover blanket" with the "Bush blanket".
 
So, of course, when you're in legal trouble, "a beer or two" means anywhere from 4 to 18. You're simply the dumbest of the dumb if you truly think "a beer or two" means 1 to 2 beers, no more.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']See if you can do better hunting quail than Dick Cheney.

http://dickcheneyquailhunt.cf.huffingtonpost.com[/QUOTE]

I haven't clicked on that link, and honestly probably won't. I will say that, as a result of this week's episodes of "The Daily Show," I've been totally fucking salivating over the prospect of breaking out my toploading NES for some Duck Hunt action.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']What is it with you conspiracy nuts?

Could be that it really was an accident. But no, since it's a Politician, the VP, and part of the Bush administration, it's got to be a conspiracy.[/QUOTE]

Cheney says he was 30 yards away when the evidence clearly shows he was significantly closer than that. Experienced hunters and the physics state he could have been 10 feet or closer.

Cheney hides out for the whole night when any normal citizen would be immediately questioned or detained.

Normally when the President or VP catches a cold the press is immediately informed. This time, however, there is evidence that the press was never going to be informed.

You're right. Nothing to see here folks! Business as usual.
 
Obviously this is a dead issue because Fox & Friends' poll question this morning was Dick Cheney Hunting Accident: Over and Done or Overdone? :roll:
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Obviously this is a dead issue because Fox & Friends' poll question this morning was Dick Cheney Hunting Accident: Over and Done or Overdone? :roll:[/QUOTE]

Maybe they didn't take take that college class, "Biased Survey's 101"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top