| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2006/2/14-15 [Reference/Military] UID:41844 Activity:high |
2/14 Poll: Do you wish that Harry Whittington would die so that Dick Cheney
can get arrested and charged for involuntary manslaughter?
Yes: .
No:
You're insane: ..
No, and it's time for a change in your meds: ..
You're way fucking stupidly ridiculously madly beyond belief insane: ..
\_ No, because Whittington will suddently became a "terrorist suspect"
and die of "natural causes" in one of those secret detention center
somewhere in Egypt. Cheney will get out of jail.. free.
\_ What if he did die in the next few days?
\_ So what's gonna happen to Dick Cheney? Basically nothing right?
It's nice to be the vice president.
\_ It's good to be the king.
\_ What would happen if you accidentally shot an old friend while
hunting? If the victim or family refuses to press charges,
the worst that would happen is you'd lose your hunting license.
\_ Involuntary manslaughter, maybe reckless endagerment type
charges if you were a dumbass.
\_ Only if he dies. And reckless endangerment requires
witnesses and cooperation from the victim.
\_ Probably not if the victim contributed to his own death
by failing to use normal rules of hunting.
\_ Ah, the Swift Boating begins...
\_ Huh? All I'm saying is that if the victim didn't
use ordinary care and follow the common rules of
safety in hunting then the VP is not at fault.
If however, as the post below suggests, the victim
was using ordinary care, then the VP is at fault
and should be punished accordingly.
Personally I think hunting is leem and that one
assumes the risk that people will die whenever
one walks around w/ a loaded gun. But it is
entirely possible that I don't understand the
importance of hunting b/c of thousands of years
of cultural bias towards strict vegetarianism.
importance of hunting due to a strong historical
bias towards non-violence and vegetarianism.
\_ If someone is hit by a hunter, it is ALWAYS
the hunter's fault.
You are responsible for where and what you
shoot. Period.
\_ "Ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the
trigger that fired the round that hit Harry,"\
"You can talk about all the other conditions
trigger that fired the round that hit Harry,"
"You can talk about all the other conditions
that existed at the time, but that's the
bottom line" "It was not Harry's fault,"
"You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy
who pulled the trigger and shot my friend.
It's a day I'll never forget."
-Dick Cheney, at a press conference today
Now close your eyes and try to imagine
George Bush ever taking responsibility for
his actions like this.
\_ I disagree. If you are hunting and some
guy jumps into the line of fire, that is
not your fault. The only thing you could
to was to NOT hunt. Even I think that
asking people to give up hunting is too
much.
Also think of the self defense case, if
the person is being attacked by a large
bear or bison or some such and fires his
gun at the animal but hits someone else
b/c he was flustered, it is not reasonable
to think that a person should not have
taken means to protect themselves on the
chance that someone might be hurt.
\_ The rules exist for a reason. If you don't follow
them and get shot... shrug.
\_ gee, I could have sworn that one of the rules
is "don't shoot people." -tom
\_ I don't know anything about quail hunting, and
I'm not ready to take a side here, but what
if they had been target shooting, and the
shooting victim had been hanging out behind the
target area? Wouldn't it be his fault then?
I think the claim the defenders are making
is that this is roughly equivalent. Personally,
it seems to me that their "safety rules" are
bunk and that quail hunting with shotguns
is simply a retarded activity.
shooting victim had been hanging out behind
the target area? Wouldn't it be his fault
then? I think the claim the defenders are
making is that this is roughly equivalent.
Personally, it seems to me that their
"safety rules" are bunk and that quail
hunting with shotguns is simply a retarded
activity.
\_ From CNN: Whittington shot a bird and went
to retrieve it in the tall grass, while
Cheney and the third hunter walked to
another spot and discovered a second covey.
Whittington "came up from behind the vice
president and the other hunter and didn't
signal them or indicate to them or announce
himself," Armstrong said. "The vice
president didn't see him," she continued.
"The covey flushed and the vice president
picked out a bird and was following it and
shot. And by God, Harry was in the line of
fire and got peppered pretty good."
--So it sounds like the VP turned around to
shoot the bird. That suggests that the
victim wasn't putting himself in the way of
fire.
\_ I think this supports my claim that
quail hunting with shotguns in this
manner is just retarded. The idea that
you're going out with a group of people
and shooting an animal that's going to
move a significant distance between the
time that you sight it in and the time
you pull the trigger, using a weapon
that sprays shot around seems destined
for accidents. This is supported by
the various other quail hunters who've
said that they've also gotten "peppered".
What the fuck? How many responsible deer
hunters do you think would talk casually
about getting "winged" by a riffle bullet
from one of their hunting buddies? None.
It seems to me that the VP is really just
guilty of participating in an assanine,
intrinsically dangerous sport.
\_ If you don't shoot quail with a
shotgun then what would you do
instead?
\_ What a strange question. Read
a book? Go for a bike ride?
Go shooting at a gun range?
Shooting quail is pretty near the
bottom of my list of things I'd
like to try. Particularly since
I hate the taste of bird meat.
\_ Not strange. I think you
misunderstood the question.
I suspect PP was asking "if you
don't use a shotgun, then what
*would* you use?".
\_ You miss the part about wandering around
in an area where his buddies are known
to be shooting and not announcing
himself? Weird how you can quote that
whole thing, cherry pick a line and then
flip the entire thing around to mean
something entirely different from what
you quoted. Do you wish he'd killed the
guy so Cheney could be up on charges?
\_ First: if the guy came up behind the
VP, that means the VP had to turn
180 to face and shoot him; also, it
is customary NOT to make noise when
approaching fellow hunters from behind
because you might spook the birds.
Second: your line about wondering
if I wanted Whittington to die reveals
that you're really not interested in
a serious, non-political discussion.
\_ I'm not a quaill hunter and suspect
you're not either, but from your
quote, it appears that making
noise in order to not get shot is
considered more important than your
buddies missing a kill. Since this
thread was started a poll asking
if we wanted the guy to die so
Cheney could face charges, it was
completely in context and
appropriate for me to ask if you
wanted him to die.
\_ I apologize for misunderstanding
I thought we'd moved passed that
silliness and were now on to
whether the VP or Whit were to
blame. From the way the story
has been reported, Whit acted
within reason for the activity.
The VP did not. The ultimate
responsibility for ANY hunting
accident rests with the person
who was holding the gun.
\_ np. Yes, pulling the trigger
is serious business but so is
going anywhere you know
triggers are being pulled. I
wouldn't walk out in a live
fire army shooting range and
expect to live or blame the
poor private who killed me.
\_ Which is why, if Whit
doesn't die, there will
likely be no charges filed
against the VP. If he
dies, however, this
could become negligent
homocide or even involun-
tary manslaughter.
\_ This is complete crap. The VP
fucked up. The number two rule
of firing a gun is to know
what you are shooting at and
what is behind it. This is a
clear cut case of bad judgement.
The fact that he had to turn
to shoot and did not know the
location of all members of the
hunting party is HIS fault.
This is especially important
when hunting game and birds like
quail which are low flyers.
blame. From the way the story
has been reported, Whit acted
within reason for the activity.
The VP did not. The ultimate
responsibility for ANY hunting
accident rests with the person
who was holding the gun.
\_ Put your shit in the right
place. You interrupted my
response to the more
reasonable person above.
So tell us how many times
you've been quail hunting?
\_ That might be a question
worth asking as a new
thread. Has anyone here
ever hunted quail? I know
a lot of hunters, but I
don't think I even know
anyone who's hunted quail.
Maybe it's just a southern
thing?
\_ Fixed.
\_ Why all the fuss? If Whittington was really pissed off, he would
have shot back. That's why everyone has guns.
\_ GUN DUEL!
\_ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_legal_4
Cheney could face charges. |
| 5/24 |
|
| news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_legal_4 Click Here Dallas defense attorney David Finn, who has been a state and a federal prosecutor, said Wednesday that a Texas grand jury could bring a charge of criminally negligent homicide if there is evidence the vice president knew or should have known "there was a substantial or unjustifiable risk that his actions would result in him shooting a fellow hunter." To indict Cheney, the grand jury would have to conclude that a reasonable person in the vice president's place would say to himself, "I am not pulling the trigger because this other guy might be in front of me," Finn said. The charge carries up to two years behind bars, but with no previous felonies Cheney would be eligible for probation, the former prosecutor said. Manslaughter, a more serious charge, would require a prosecutor to prove Cheney was reckless, which would be "virtually impossible under the facts we know today," said Michael Sharlot, professor of criminal law at the University of Texas at Austin. "With recklessness, the defendant has to be aware of the risk, but choose to ignore it. With negligence, he doesn't have to be conscious of the risk, but a reasonable person would have been," Sharlot said. As vice president, Cheney has no immunity from prosecution. Mark Skurka, first assistant district attorney of the three-county area where the shooting took place, said prosecutors did not have an investigation under way. "If something unfortunate happens, then we'll decide what to do, then we'll decide whether we're going to have an investigation or not," Skurka said. If District Attorney Carlos Valdez decided to pursue charges, he would forward the matter to a grand jury, which would determine whether to indict Cheney. Valdez, a Democrat, is best known for his prosecution of Yolanda Saldivar, who was sentenced to life in prison for the 1995 slaying of Tejano singer Selena. Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old lawyer, was struck in the face, neck and chest with shotgun pellets over the weekend while Cheney was shooting at quail. Whittington suffered a mild heart attack Tuesday after a pellet traveled to his heart. On Wednesday, hospital officials said he had a normal heart rhythm again and was sitting up in a chair, eating regular food and planned to do some legal work in his hospital room. Doctors said they are highly optimistic he will recover. In a TV interview Wednesday, the vice president accepted full blame for the shooting and defended his decision not to publicly disclose the accident until the following day. If Whittington recovers, Cheney could still face a felony charge of negligently causing injury to an aged person, Sharlot said. But he said such a charge would be "quite unusual" in the case of a hunting accident. In the only other case of someone being shot by a vice president, Aaron Burr was indicted on murder charges in New York and New Jersey for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804, but he was never tried and finished out his term in office. Vice President Dick Cheney, center, walks back to his office in the White House after doing a television interview, Wednesday, Feb. At right is Mary Mataline, Cheney's former communication director. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |