It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NEWS: Dick Cheney Accidentally Shoots Hunting Partner
page: 2share:
Going on the only information we have at the time being, as much as I hate Cheney, I don't believe it was his fault at all. When someone else is
handling a gun, you announce your presence around them. It sounds like the man came up near Cheney as Cheney was tracking the flock of birds and shot
without realizing he was now aiming at the man who had walked up.
LoganCale, what if it was a child? What if several wives were there and one walked up without announcing herself.
I can't believe people are making the shooter the victim here! I don't get that at all.
The person with the gun is responsible for EVERYTHING that the gun does. Period.
I can't believe people are making the shooter the victim here! I don't get that at all.
The person with the gun is responsible for EVERYTHING that the gun does. Period.
As I mentioned in the other thread, what about the conspiratorial side of it? Why the 24hr news blackout? Did Cheney panic, and they couldn't figure
out what to do? 24 hours to find a replacement for a dead man? Did they need an incident so Cheney could resign, and set-up a PNAC nominee in '08?
[edit on 12-2-2006 by curme]
[edit on 12-2-2006 by curme]
BH
Yeah, the guy with the gun is responsible for what get shot, but the mechanics of bird hunting make accidents pretty frequent for people not paying attention. Hunting accidents are usually not a big deal for the courts, and that might have something to do with the fact that victims almost never press charges. Accidents happen when you play with firearms.
What kind of weirdo brings their baby and wife along on the hunt? The whole idea of hunting is to get out of the house, where the baby and the wife live.
:ducks out:
Yeah, the guy with the gun is responsible for what get shot, but the mechanics of bird hunting make accidents pretty frequent for people not paying attention. Hunting accidents are usually not a big deal for the courts, and that might have something to do with the fact that victims almost never press charges. Accidents happen when you play with firearms.
What kind of weirdo brings their baby and wife along on the hunt? The whole idea of hunting is to get out of the house, where the baby and the wife live.
:ducks out:
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
LoganCale, what if it was a child? What if several wives were there and one walked up without announcing herself.
I can't believe people are making the shooter the victim here! I don't get that at all.
The person with the gun is responsible for EVERYTHING that the gun does. Period.
If you're going hunting, you should understand safety procedures before you leave the house. And one of those is that you always announce your presence when you are near a person who is currently in the act of firing a weapon. It's not the shooter's fault if he is concentrating on a target and someone goes out in front of his gun. That is why young children should not even be around that kind of situation, because they don't understand the risk yet.
The shooter is not the victim, but I don't believe he was responsible in this case.
The guy is a lawyer, he probably got cheesed at him and being 78 he probably thought it was his time anyway.
He's hunted on numerous occasions i'm sure, and he obviously knows how to handle a gun, this was not an accident but was most likely intentional.
No hunter ever says his shot was an accident, and no hunter would ever take a shot an a puny quail with a human nearby.
And this is the guy that is our vice president!
Go back to the oil fields cheney, your incompetence makes this country look bad.
He's hunted on numerous occasions i'm sure, and he obviously knows how to handle a gun, this was not an accident but was most likely intentional.
No hunter ever says his shot was an accident, and no hunter would ever take a shot an a puny quail with a human nearby.
And this is the guy that is our vice president!
Go back to the oil fields cheney, your incompetence makes this country look bad.
growing up around hunters i know that this isnt as uncommon as it seems. my friends dad was on a hunting trip with a friend of his and he wanted to
test his gun, and saw what he thought was a piece of cloth hanging from a tree. he was about to shoot it to see if his sights were accruate and my
dads friend goes "what the hell are you doing?!" and they found it was a guy sitting next to a tree having a smoke. safety is always first and
stupidity should be investigated. if its truely an accidental discharge and the guy is alright i think he should just have to retake the safety
course. if some one got killed then he shouldnt own a gun. i dont necessarily think a mistake like this should be charged though
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The person with the gun is responsible for EVERYTHING that the gun does. Period.
BH the hunting partner is also responsible for telling his shooting partner that he has entered the blind side of his partner. In this case his partner did not do as he should have. Had he followed safety protocol they would be sitting in a bar telling stories right now.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Yeah, the guy with the gun is responsible for what get shot, but the mechanics of bird hunting make accidents pretty frequent for people not paying attention.
I'm going to revel in the oppurtunity to use a popular progandic catch phrase as a retort............
"Guns don't kill people......people do."
*ouch*.....'backfire'....at any rate...
The inherent message in this very clever and relevant phrase is that people are resonsible for their firearms. What exactly has changed in this case?
As promised, I'm following up on the law in Texas.
So far I have identified very little in the Penal Code that looks even remotely bad for this situation.
First, culpability:
www.bakers-legal-pages.com...
So, unless Dick Cheney voluntarily (implied, knowingly), omitted some rule of safe conduct.
Mistakes:
www.bakers-legal-pages.com...
So, if Dick Cheney mistook a situation, and the his action would have been legal in spite of the harmful results if his assessment had been correct, he cannot be convicted of that particular offense, although lesser offenses not requiring knowledge could be charged.
This will probably not be applicable, it seems more geared towards self-defense, etc.
Deadly Conduct
www.bakers-legal-pages.com...
So, Cheney's lack of knowledge protects him from a charge of deadly conduct, unless the circumstances of the shooting were such that he was also firing roughly in the direction of the vehicle.
Carrying
www.bakers-legal-pages.com...
So I don't see any applicable lesser charge than deadly conduct, which Cheney is innocent of because of his lack of knowledge.
In so many words, Cheney didn't -legally- do anything wrong. He may have, as I believe, handled his weapon in an undisciplined and unsafe manner, but lapses in judgement and safety are not against the law. I'd like to point out one thing that I've heard a time or two in safety classes- there are no accidents, only incidents. If you're make 100% sure of your line of fire, target, and backstop, you will not shoot somebody.
So far I have identified very little in the Penal Code that looks even remotely bad for this situation.
First, culpability:
www.bakers-legal-pages.com...
01. REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION. (a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession.
So, unless Dick Cheney voluntarily (implied, knowingly), omitted some rule of safe conduct.
Mistakes:
www.bakers-legal-pages.com...
Sec. 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.
So, if Dick Cheney mistook a situation, and the his action would have been legal in spite of the harmful results if his assessment had been correct, he cannot be convicted of that particular offense, although lesser offenses not requiring knowledge could be charged.
This will probably not be applicable, it seems more geared towards self-defense, etc.
Deadly Conduct
www.bakers-legal-pages.com...
Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
~ (b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
~ ~ (1) one or more individuals; or
~ ~ (2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
~ (c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
~ (d) For purposes of this section, "building, " "habitation, " and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
~ (e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.
So, Cheney's lack of knowledge protects him from a charge of deadly conduct, unless the circumstances of the shooting were such that he was also firing roughly in the direction of the vehicle.
Carrying
www.bakers-legal-pages.com...
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club.
(4) engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or was directly en route between the premises and the actor's residence, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;
So I don't see any applicable lesser charge than deadly conduct, which Cheney is innocent of because of his lack of knowledge.
In so many words, Cheney didn't -legally- do anything wrong. He may have, as I believe, handled his weapon in an undisciplined and unsafe manner, but lapses in judgement and safety are not against the law. I'd like to point out one thing that I've heard a time or two in safety classes- there are no accidents, only incidents. If you're make 100% sure of your line of fire, target, and backstop, you will not shoot somebody.
Originally posted by shots
the hunting partner is also responsible for telling his shooting partner that he has entered the blind side of his partner. In this case his partner did not do as he should have.
I would like to stress that the story has a high liklihood of being tailor made for damage control........anything that happens with our leaders usually runs through several filters.....and a hunting accident wouldn't be left alone...not even a little.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
hosted.ap.org
Armstrong said Cheney turned to shoot a bird and accidentally hit Whittington.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
What the Brits say
Ms Armstrong said Mr Cheney had turned round to shoot...
what the (commercial) Aussies say
...(no mention of turning!)...
emphasis mine.
Okay, I'll admit that everyone is getting their info from the same source here, it's difficult to corroborate from the other side of the globe. BUT, two mentioned the fact that Cheney turned to shoot.
Can someone give me the first rule of bird hunting?
You know, the one about firing to your FRONT...
I still don't suspect anything more than an accident, but only because Whittington is alive, and I really doubt Dick Cheney would have done the
shooting himself on purpose.
www.statesman.com...
It turns out that on 28 January of this year, Whittington's fight with the City of Austin over their eminent domain seizure of an entire city block he owned, worth a little over 7 million dollars. The fight started in 2000, but the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal just last month, leaving Whittington victorious.
He's also had a bone to pick with the Death Penalty in Texas according to a Wikipedia article, but I have not yet confirmed that with any other source.
I have confirmed however that he contributed to the Bush/Cheney campaign in the primaries in 2003, so it's not like they're sworn enemies.
www.newsmeat.com...
I just thought I'd toss the Eminent Domain thing out there incase anybody wants to dig deeper, even though I doubt there's anything there.
This is a conspiracy site though...
www.statesman.com...
It turns out that on 28 January of this year, Whittington's fight with the City of Austin over their eminent domain seizure of an entire city block he owned, worth a little over 7 million dollars. The fight started in 2000, but the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal just last month, leaving Whittington victorious.
He's also had a bone to pick with the Death Penalty in Texas according to a Wikipedia article, but I have not yet confirmed that with any other source.
I have confirmed however that he contributed to the Bush/Cheney campaign in the primaries in 2003, so it's not like they're sworn enemies.
www.newsmeat.com...
I just thought I'd toss the Eminent Domain thing out there incase anybody wants to dig deeper, even though I doubt there's anything there.
This is a conspiracy site though...
Originally posted by MemoryShock
I would like to stress that the story has a high liklihood of being tailor made for damage control........anything that happens with our leaders usually runs through several filters.....and a hunting accident wouldn't be left alone...not even a little.
I understand that. I was just trying to point out the rules of safety that hunters that hunt in groups follow. Normally they go something like this
When you are hunting with companions, you should determine ahead of time the area or zone of fire, within which each hunter will track and fire should game appear. Other hunters should never enter into the zone/area of another hunter
Obviously in this case his partner did not follow the rules that are normally followed.
The above reply is based on the way the current media is reporting the events as they happened.
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.
ap.org
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
[edit on 2/12/2006 by shots]
Wouldn't there be a police report, and wouldn't it be public? I don't know, I'm asking. It would be an interesting read. It'd be interesting to
see the times.
Who cares about the idiot hunter he shot, what about the birds man!?
Do they need to be shot? Can you realy call that hunting?
More like target practice with live creatures.
Cheney is to blaim for being there, and so are the other suedo-hunters. But I say tough crap to the guy shot, now you know how the birds feel!
Do Humans have any respect for their Planet and it's creatures? I guess not, only people matter
just my 2pence....
[edit on 12/2/2006 by ANOK]
Do they need to be shot? Can you realy call that hunting?
More like target practice with live creatures.
Cheney is to blaim for being there, and so are the other suedo-hunters. But I say tough crap to the guy shot, now you know how the birds feel!
Do Humans have any respect for their Planet and it's creatures? I guess not, only people matter
just my 2pence....
[edit on 12/2/2006 by ANOK]
Originally posted by shots
When you are hunting with companions, you should determine ahead of time the area or "zone of fire" within which each hunter will track and fire should game appear. Other hunters should never enter into the zone of another hunter
Obviously in this case his partner did not follow the rules that are normally followed.
Understood. However, the rule you just cited requires a collaboration. The leaving of the party by Whittington should have been met with awareness. I'll grant that...'according to the press release'.......Whittington should have been aware of the fact that his partners would continue hunting, but his partners should have been aware of the fact that he was de facto.
There really is no excuse. Accidenty aside, Cheney, especially in the capacity is currently in, should have more awareness regarding everything he does.
I have done my own research and will concur with the The Vagabond....there really is no legal issue here. Not even with 'an average Joe'. Everything I have found seems to understand that hunting carries with it a certain admissability that you are placing yourself in risk and as such, the responsibility lies with the hunter. Differences exist with accidental deaths, but a death did not occur in this case.....Lucky for all parties involved.
I will, however, still opinin that Cheney is at fault, at least partially. I don't believe that there is a relevant excuse for this occurance.
The Vagabond.........very interesting stuff on the eminant domain association. Though incredibly circumstantial, if at all relevant, there is now potentially a conflict. Many details are needed, and unfortunately, the details necassary cannot necassarily be communicated through the media.....
[edit on 12-2-2006 by MemoryShock]
[edit on 12-2-2006 by MemoryShock]
Lol. I wonder if it was accidentally on purpose.
Whats he doing hunting, anyway? Those poor little animals, suffering at the hands of incompetents.
Whats he doing hunting, anyway? Those poor little animals, suffering at the hands of incompetents.
Originally posted by ANOK
Who cares about the idiot hunter he shot, what about the birds man!?
Do they need to be shot? Can you realy call that hunting?
More like target practice with live creatures.
While this article is about the human, I do agree with you that all sport hunting should be banned. I think it's disgusting except in the cases where people really do need the food. It's not going to be banned for some time, though. Eventually, even slaughter of animals for food will be eradicated, and I think that's a good thing. Animals are living creatures too and deserve to live as much as we do. So I could never bring myself to kill an animal except in self defense.
But, back to the topic at hand.
The only reason this is news is because it is negative and it involves the Bush administration. It was a hunting accident. The victim is okay.
It's funny that anything political that's anti-Bush is voted up in a heartbeat, but anything political that's in any way positive about the Bush
administration gets shipped off to PTS ASAP.
For you Cheney haters, here's a great shot for you"
[edit on 2006/2/12 by GradyPhilpott]
For you Cheney haters, here's a great shot for you"
[edit on 2006/2/12 by GradyPhilpott]