Lori Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 Just out of curiosity, how many of you personally know someone who's been involved in some sort of hunting accident? I work with at least three (and those are just the ones I know about). I normally dislike stereotyping people, but in regards to this situation, I'm going to guess the media types making the biggest deal about this incident: 1) grew up in an urban setting, and 2) are pro-gun control. (To pre-empt the obvious joke: yeah, Cheney should have had better control of HIS gun...) So what's my point? While this was a newsworthy event -- after all, it's not every day that the Vice President shoots someone -- anyone who's ever hunted knows that accidents do happen.
Bob Lamb Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 Just out of curiosity, how many of you personally know someone who's been involved in some sort of hunting accident? I work with at least three (and those are just the ones I know about). I normally dislike stereotyping people, but in regards to this situation, I'm going to guess the media types making the biggest deal about this incident: 1) grew up in an urban setting, and 2) are pro-gun control. (To pre-empt the obvious joke: yeah, Cheney should have had better control of HIS gun...) So what's my point? While this was a newsworthy event -- after all, it's not every day that the Vice President shoots someone -- anyone who's ever hunted knows that accidents do happen. 606338[/snapback] Vice presidents can get away with those things - like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton-Burr_duel Two men who wanted to be President so bad they could taste it !
UConn James Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 Just out of curiosity, how many of you personally know someone who's been involved in some sort of hunting accident? I work with at least three (and those are just the ones I know about). I normally dislike stereotyping people, but in regards to this situation, I'm going to guess the media types making the biggest deal about this incident: 1) grew up in an urban setting, and 2) are pro-gun control. (To pre-empt the obvious joke: yeah, Cheney should have had better control of HIS gun...) So what's my point? While this was a newsworthy event -- after all, it's not every day that the Vice President shoots someone -- anyone who's ever hunted knows that accidents do happen. 606338[/snapback] I attend things at several gun clubs, and the only hunting mishaps I've heard from people I know have been a heart attack and one guy who scared away a 12-point buck (by his estimation, which means it was really a 2-pointer) by the click when he failed to remember to take the safety off. Sure, there've been second-hand stories of guys who tried to go over a fence/wall while carrying the gun (stupid, stupid, stupid). But shooting a hunting partner, no. But there was a time I was at my grandparents' farm in WNY, and some guys in blaze orange come up the driveway, went over to the silo and three shots rang out. Seems that they'd shot the deer elsewhere and tracked it there. When my uncle went out to confront them (mainly in a 'WTF are you doing on MY LAND?!!?) they huffed and puffed, then ended up dragging the deer with four bullet holes in it, through the liquid-sh---fertilized field. Would it have counted as a hunting accident if those fecking morons were shot with my Marlin? Darwin probably would have approved....
Simon Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 Does raining down shot on your buddies in the next field count?-) What about shooting them with blunts?
Lori Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 Does raining down shot on your buddies in the next field count?-)What about shooting them with blunts? 606358[/snapback] Now see, I'd expect a fellow Pennsyltuckian to "get it"... I'm not trying to diminish this. (Ah, heck, maybe I am.) I'm just glad Cheney's friend is going to be all right. But he's not the first guy I've ever known to get peppered with birdshot at 30 yards, either. Guess living HERE, I'm just more used to hearing about stuff like this, is all...
Simon Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 Now see, I'd expect a fellow Pennsyltuckian to "get it"... I'm not trying to diminish this. (Ah, heck, maybe I am.) I'm just glad Cheney's friend is going to be all right. But he's not the first guy I've ever known to get peppered with birdshot at 30 yards, either. Guess living HERE, I'm just more used to hearing about stuff like this, is all... 606369[/snapback] There's nothing quite like walking through the woods alone at 5:30am and having a field tip come out of nowhere and thunk into a tree 3' from your head. Good luck staying quiet when that happens.
Mickey Posted February 18, 2006 Author Posted February 18, 2006 True. He didn't have to lie. But he did. Oh well. By the way, I have no idea, so maybe you know. Is there a law against drinking and hunting? We don't know that he was or wasn't drinking, by the way. Is there such thing as a HWI? Violating FISA? I don't know what that is either, so I'll have to get back to you. I won't automatically assume that it's more of your red team blue team partisan bluster. 606060[/snapback] I don't know, that kind of thing is governed by state law so it would vary from place to place. Most states have some sort of statute dealing with criminal negligence. To get a little technical, this would be an assault if it were "intentional" and that word has a meaning in the law that goes beyond specific intent. It could include conduct so reckless, so careless, that the law implies intent to do harm. If you fire a gun into a crowd of people, you can't argue that you "didn't mean to hurt anyone". Even though you might not have had that specific intent, your conduct was so reckless, so clearly likely to result in harm that the intent to do harm is implicit in your actions. It would be preposterous to suggest that Cheney specifically intended to shoot anyone let alone this particular fellow. However, that doesn't end the discussion as to whether a crime was committed. That is why I find his statement in the Hume interview that he saw the guy fall to be a critical one. It means there was nothing obscuring his sight, no trick of the light that hid the victim so that Cheney could not see him. If that were so, that same obstruction or trick of the light would have also kept him from seeing the guy fall. What then is the explanation for having shot him? He was there to be seen, he was not inivisible. Cheney was able to see him, there was no trick of the light (sun in his eyes, shadows, etc) and there wasn't anything partially obstructing his vision either (brush, trees, etc.). Why then did he shoot a guy 30 yards away when he was able to see him? What, excluding the absurd idea that he meant to shoot him, are the possibilities? Diminished capacity due to alcohol consumption would certainly be a candidate, at the very least something to investigate right away, even if just to make sure it wasn't an issue. The way to determine that is for an experienced officer to interview the shooter as soon after the accident as possible. That was not done here. Therefore, we will likely never know whether alcohol was a factor. I find the delay, the lack of a proper investigation of that aspect of the incident to be significant. Sure, nothing can be proved but that is kind of the point. It could have been easily proved or disproved if the same investigation that the police routinely perform in these situations was done. If you are Dick Cheney and you have a history of DUI's, were seen drinking a beer at lunch and then you shoot a guy in the face, wouldn't you want your sobriety at the time of the shooting to be demonstrated as a rock solid fact? Why pursue a course of action that leaves any doubts as to that issue? He has an entire medical team traveling with him for God's sake, you mean to tell me that they couldn't have done that? Its not like it is a hard thing to do or that its time consuming. Why was it not done? Is it partisan bluster to wonder why the VP's sobriety at the time of the shooting wasn't demonstrated? If had a client involved in a similar situation and I failed to try and determine that fact, one way or the other, I'd be committing malpractice. I think the partisan bluster is coming from those who deride any questions about what happened in this tragic incident as spinning conpiracy theories. The incident is hardly a week old, very little actual evidence has been made public and already the right has concluded it is an open and shut case of a simple accident and that anyone posing questions about what happened is a conspiracy crackpot.
Alaska Darin Posted February 19, 2006 Posted February 19, 2006 I don't know, that kind of thing is governed by state law so it would vary from place to place. Most states have some sort of statute dealing with criminal negligence. To get a little technical, this would be an assault if it were "intentional" and that word has a meaning in the law that goes beyond specific intent. It could include conduct so reckless, so careless, that the law implies intent to do harm. If you fire a gun into a crowd of people, you can't argue that you "didn't mean to hurt anyone". Even though you might not have had that specific intent, your conduct was so reckless, so clearly likely to result in harm that the intent to do harm is implicit in your actions. It would be preposterous to suggest that Cheney specifically intended to shoot anyone let alone this particular fellow. However, that doesn't end the discussion as to whether a crime was committed. That is why I find his statement in the Hume interview that he saw the guy fall to be a critical one. It means there was nothing obscuring his sight, no trick of the light that hid the victim so that Cheney could not see him. If that were so, that same obstruction or trick of the light would have also kept him from seeing the guy fall. What then is the explanation for having shot him? He was there to be seen, he was not inivisible. Cheney was able to see him, there was no trick of the light (sun in his eyes, shadows, etc) and there wasn't anything partially obstructing his vision either (brush, trees, etc.). Why then did he shoot a guy 30 yards away when he was able to see him? What, excluding the absurd idea that he meant to shoot him, are the possibilities? Diminished capacity due to alcohol consumption would certainly be a candidate, at the very least something to investigate right away, even if just to make sure it wasn't an issue. The way to determine that is for an experienced officer to interview the shooter as soon after the accident as possible. That was not done here. Therefore, we will likely never know whether alcohol was a factor. I find the delay, the lack of a proper investigation of that aspect of the incident to be significant. Sure, nothing can be proved but that is kind of the point. It could have been easily proved or disproved if the same investigation that the police routinely perform in these situations was done. If you are Dick Cheney and you have a history of DUI's, were seen drinking a beer at lunch and then you shoot a guy in the face, wouldn't you want your sobriety at the time of the shooting to be demonstrated as a rock solid fact? Why pursue a course of action that leaves any doubts as to that issue? He has an entire medical team traveling with him for God's sake, you mean to tell me that they couldn't have done that? Its not like it is a hard thing to do or that its time consuming. Why was it not done? Is it partisan bluster to wonder why the VP's sobriety at the time of the shooting wasn't demonstrated? If had a client involved in a similar situation and I failed to try and determine that fact, one way or the other, I'd be committing malpractice. I think the partisan bluster is coming from those who deride any questions about what happened in this tragic incident as spinning conpiracy theories. The incident is hardly a week old, very little actual evidence has been made public and already the right has concluded it is an open and shut case of a simple accident and that anyone posing questions about what happened is a conspiracy crackpot. 606414[/snapback] Translation: Mickey's a liberal and wants some blood because the VP doesn't share his political views. Were the "accused" a liberal, Mickey would be feeding us gems like: 1. The victim hasn't said anything bad about the situation. If he's not angry then no else should be. 2. If the shooter was drinking then the victim should have never entered the range in the first place. Not only that, the evil company that got paid for the hunt is more liable because they allowed guns, ammunition, and alcohol on their property at the same time. 3. The media hasn't uncovered anything but circumstantial evidence, so there likely isn't anything to the story. Feel free to add your own "Mickjisms". Try to make them both insulting and funny, as we know such things make him feel so alive.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 19, 2006 Posted February 19, 2006 Translation: Mickey's a liberal and wants some blood because the VP doesn't share his political views. Were the "accused" a liberal, Mickey would be feeding us gems like: 1. The victim hasn't said anything bad about the situation. If he's not angry then no else should be. 2. If the shooter was drinking then the victim should have never entered the range in the first place. Not only that, the evil company that got paid for the hunt is more liable because they allowed guns, ammunition, and alcohol on their property at the same time. 3. The media hasn't uncovered anything but circumstantial evidence, so there likely isn't anything to the story. Feel free to add your own "Mickjisms". Try to make them both insulting and funny, as we know such things make him feel so alive. 606556[/snapback]
KRC Posted February 19, 2006 Posted February 19, 2006 I find this eerily similar to the type of character assasination that you're repeatedly complaining about coming from the Republican party. Or is it OK when it comes from a Democrat because y'all are so much more open-minded? 606078[/snapback] You are suprised that Mickey is being a hypocrite? You need to visit more. This is typical for him.
KD in CA Posted February 19, 2006 Posted February 19, 2006 For those of you who are (for some reason) still obsessed with this story, the two camps will be squaring off on Tim Russert's show this AM.
Mickey Posted February 20, 2006 Author Posted February 20, 2006 606566[/snapback] There is a word for the kind of post where you simply make up senseless positions for the other guy which he has never taken and then spew all over them. A picture, however, is worth a thousand words so rather than giving it a name, check out AD in this video demonstrating his personal method of debate (hint: he is the guy in the kangaroo suit): AD's Debating Syle
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 There is a word for the kind of post where you simply make up senseless positions for the other guy which he has never taken and then spew all over them. 607250[/snapback] "Liberal"?
Mickey Posted February 20, 2006 Author Posted February 20, 2006 "Liberal"? 607258[/snapback] How dare you call AD a liberal? Well, you were close but the password was "masturbation". Don't worry, we have some nice consolation prizes for you.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 How dare you call AD a liberal? Well, you were close but the password was "masturbation". Don't worry, we have some nice consolation prizes for you. 607268[/snapback] It was an honest mistake, considering how suspiciously similar it to your posting style.
Mickey Posted February 20, 2006 Author Posted February 20, 2006 It was an honest mistake, considering how suspiciously similar it to your posting style. 607271[/snapback] Are you referring to the time you argued on behalf of the merits of white slavery until I demonstrated beyond doubt that from an economic standpoint, slavery, once you add in insurance rates and legal fees, was a drain on the economy? I think that was right after you wrote passionately in favor of pediatric cancer until I showed you the error of your ways.
SilverNRed Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 There is a word for the kind of post where you simply make up senseless positions for the other guy which he has never taken and then spew all over them. 607250[/snapback] That's comforting considering it happens quite a bit around here. I used to say to myself, "Self, that SilverNRed is so absolutely devoted to the Bush Cult that they could shoot a guy in the face and he would find nothing wrong with it and in fact, would attack and mock anyone who thought maybe such a thing was not exactly their finest hour." Call me prescient. What do you use to get the stench of their ball sweat off of your breath? Trident? 604476[/snapback]
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Are you referring to the time you argued on behalf of the merits of white slavery until I demonstrated beyond doubt that from an economic standpoint, slavery, once you add in insurance rates and legal fees, was a drain on the economy? I think that was right after you wrote passionately in favor of pediatric cancer until I showed you the error of your ways. 607279[/snapback] Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of "The VP was drunk when he shot Whittington in the face..."
Mickey Posted February 20, 2006 Author Posted February 20, 2006 Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of "The VP was drunk when he shot Whittington in the face..." 607301[/snapback] I don't beleive I ever said he was drunk, just that he might have been and no one bothered to figure that out one way or the other. I certainly never attributed that claim to you and then mocked you for having made it. I'd be happy to do so though if you are feeling left out. I know how lonely you fascist geeks can get. Do you want the Kangaroo's phone number?
Alaska Darin Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Do you want the Kangaroo's phone number? 607344[/snapback] Why? Recruiting another lemming for your regular circle jerks? Tom doesn't exactly fit the profile.
Recommended Posts