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: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
These days shotguns have what are called inter-changeable chokes, and come in normal, modified, and full choke options. Chokes are designed to scew into the end of the barrel of the shotgun and help control spread of the BB pattern. A full choke will keep the pattern together noticeably at the same range that a normal choke would not. Federal Ammo has even come up with a shot shell that has a plug that enhances this effect, cupping the shot as it leaves the barrel, and inhibiting spread even further. They are specifically designed for turkey hunting, as one generally shoots at the head and neck of a gobbler to avoid spoiling all that delicious breast meat.




posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I think congratulations are in order. This thread has managed to go a ways now without anybody trying to make up their own laws to catch Cheney in violation of.

I have noticed a few comparisons to the Lewinsky mess (no pun intended), and I'd like to address those real quick. I really don't think the same mechanism is at work at all. They're really exactly opposite of eachother.

The attack on Clinton started with a certain segment of the people, their party, and the news had to come along for the ratings. This incident starts with the media, is seized upon by a party, and is just funny as heck to a lot of the people.

Clinton was the victim of a political lynching attempt. The religious right, which for better or for worse is a fairly potent political force, was ticked off, the Republicans were ticked off, and with an audience that big, the media hardly even had a choice. Give the people what they want, right?

In this case, the media is not just following a popular story. This is the media punishing somebody for treating them badly. The press is upset with this administration because they don't answer questions or release info, but the press feels like it should be priority number one for an administration. The democrats smell blood in the water obviously; I'm sure their campaign strategists are telling them exactly what I would tell them, which is that all they have to do is heavily associate the Republicans with Bush/Cheney and promise inspecific changes in the areas where this administrations numbers are lowest: When everybody hates your opponents, your issues can only hurt you. It's politics at it's worst, but it's reality. As for average person, I think they're getting a great laugh out of it. They could give less than a rip about the incident itself, but it's Cheney on TV, and Cheney is not easy to like.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jnrbuckeye
Why are we so willing to acept that this WAS an accident? Why isn't an investigation forthcoming? After all, Cheney's staff tried not to disclose this story at all! They didn't even tell Pres. Bush's people about it til the next DAY!!! What's up with that? Hey I thought this was a CONSPIRACY THEORIST'S SITE?!? I am wondering, anywho...
As a matter of fact,



It seems clear that this is a cover-up in progress. The hospital where Whittington was taken after the shooting is a heavily guarded facility where he is being operated upon and monitored by doctors and surgeons close to the President and Vice President. These highly skilled medical professionals would have known instantly by a simple X-Ray if he had suffered from a shot to the heart. These doctors, loyal to the the Bush-Cheney cabal are clearly colluding to conceal information about Whittington's actual condition for their masters.


Source




Reports and press releases that followed the event explained that some of the pellets had become lodged in his heart tissue. The only way this is possible, the only way that the tiny pellets designed to spread over distance could have maintained the force necessary to penetrate Whittington's hunting vest, clothing, skin, muscle, bone and finally into his rock-hard heart would have been if they came from a much shorter distance than the White House is claiming.



There are things that remain unanswered.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
They did not react quick enough to stamp it out, and now Cheney was forced to admit it.

If this goes from one beer to a couple, or more I would like to see.




One beer, ehh? Policemen will state that is most over used excuse in the history of drunk driving. Cheney has a pattern of drunk driving and was kicked out of Yale for being a boozehound...more like "one gallon"!

Afternoon or Lunch? One or two?


Armstrong later acknowledged to a reporter from the NBC investigative unit that alcohol may have been served at a picnic Saturday afternoon on the dude ranch where Cheney shot Harry Whittington.

According to the report, which appeared briefly Tuesday on MSNBC, Armstrong peddled the line that she did not believe that alcohol played a part in the shooting accident. But, she admitted, "There may be a beer or two in there, but remember not everyone in the party was shooting."
source


What's Dick combining that beer with in regards to all his prescriptions?

Pattern of drug abuse makes Dick ill. Pattern of drug abuse makes Dick kill?
Medication triggered illness that sent Cheney to hospital


Ox

posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I just love it when I'm right..

Now.. I'm not saying I'm right about everything I've said.. But.. I'm right..

And if this WAS just an accident.. then it would have been reported and not held up for his advisors and BS artists to make up some kind of cover up story, take care of the Doctors and what not.

I just love it when stuff works out..



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
My WAG is that he was suspected of leaking information or was about too that would have made trouble for the boys. Thus the accident is really about plugging the leak. Prior to the SOTU, CT had mentioned that they think they know who it is & they're gonna take him out

Then again maybe he was just drunk and thought his partner was a bird.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by outsider]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by outsider
My WAG is that he was suspected of leaking information or was about too that would have made trouble for the boys. Thus the accident is really about plugging the leak. Prior to the SOTU, CT had mentioned that they think they know who it is & they're gonna take him out

Then again maybe he was just drunk and thought his partner was a bird.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by outsider]




Better yet, this guy maybe one of the many Republicans that's been upset with the crap the Bush Adminstration has been pulling with that CIA cover-up, etc............ Remember Bush saying and not in exactly the same words he said "your either with us or your un-patriot" or some nonsence like that.

So here we go again,.... we either bow-down to Lord Dubya and his VP and beleive every lie that pours out of their mouths about this shooting that poor baby Cheney committed against a so-called "good-buddy", or we're called Bush & Cheney haters and a few other things along those lines and considered the enemy of the Bush Adminstration.

The shooting victim ,IMO, had to be closer than what Cheney and his followers are claiming for the pellets to enter the body as we now know has been told that they have, and if the tables were turned and it was Cheney that got shoot by supposively- accident, the shooter would be in jail as we speak and up on charges for trying to assassinate the VP of the US.

The facts of the matter is,.......... we'll never know the REAL truth because Cheney and his boss wouldn't know how to tell the difference between lies and REAL truths( because they have convinced theirselves that the lies they have been telling from day 1 of taking the white house are their truths) if the REAL truths reached up and smacked them square in their faces every time they open their mouths.

Are they covering up the truth?? Yep and I'd stake my life on that.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
BTW - I'm not a Cheney hater & I voted for Bush both times, but I can no longer support them, because of the Pat act and the rest.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
How large of a charge of birdshot and what choke setting does it take to shoot a little bird? All this looks like it was an enormous charge with the choke wide open. "Never Miss" Cheney. That isn't sport, its cheating!



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
So how much influence (peddling) does Katherine still have with Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission? They took the first report.



Cheney's Negligence -- Is it a felony?
By Jerry M. Ward

I am an attorney from Idaho. I heard somebody in the media say something to the effect that if Mr. Whittington died, then there would "possibly" be an investigation, which got me thinking.

My uncle was shot in a hunting accident many years ago, and nearly died. It was clearly an accident, but I believe the shooter was charged (and of course, this occurred in Idaho). My thought was, whether Whittington dies or not, Cheney certainly appears to have been negligent, and arguably reckless. In Idaho we have a statute regarding "reckless endangerment," so I wondered if Texas has a similar charge. Since we have the casemaker library, which covers Texas in addition to other states, I decided to see what I could find.

Lo and behold, Texas Penal Code Title 5, Chapter 22.04(a)(3) makes it an offense for someone to injure an elderly person (over age 65) by an act of recklessness or criminal negligence. Subsection (f) or (g) would make it a "state jail felony."


PENAL 22.04



Could the possiblity of criminal negligence charges have been the reason the Sheriff's office didn't get in right away?

TP&W have already declared it an accident. Cheney has issued his apology, assumed responsibility, and all will be forgiven?


Shows over, move along...



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I was wondering, if Cheney had of killed him by mistake instead of just injuring him, would Cheney go to jail? He would, right? Just like anyone else? Being 'up there' doesn't give you immunity and allow you to kill people with your gun right?
Would he go to a normal jail with a bunch of other criminals? What would happen?



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Here goes the legal stuff again. First of all, kudos for actually finding the law. That's a big step forward. There is some wiggle room in the law however. To injure by omission is only an offense if you have assumed responsibility for the care of an individual.

So a tricky avenue of defense is open: Cheney can argue that it is not the act of shooting, but the omission of keeping track of his fellow hunter's position, that caused the incident, and because he is not the victim's caretaker, he is not responsible to keep track of his position, and therefore the (b) loophole gets him out.

It's the blame the victim thing that we were hearing at the very outset, and now it makes a lot more sense. It was a horrible PR move, and didn't make much sense until the legal aspect came up. There's your conspiracy, albeit a minor one, more than anything a simple matter of legal strategy.

Also, as far conspiracy theories go, those of you looking for a motive shouldn't have to look far. I already posted the thing about Whittington's battle against eminent domain, and although I haven't got a source on this next part, I also hear he's been rather outspoken against the death penalty. Hmm... an eminent domain lawyer shot by Cheney? Seems like an unlikely choice of shooters, but I've been saying from the beginning that if he'd been shot by somebody else and not lived, there would have no telling me that it was an accident.


Originally posted by psyopswatcher

I am an attorney from Idaho. (snip)
Texas Penal Code Title 5, Chapter 22.04(a)(3) makes it an offense for someone to injure an elderly person (over age 65) by an act of recklessness or criminal negligence. Subsection (f) or (g) would make it a "state jail felony."
PENAL 22.04



22.04 (a) and (b)

Sec. 22.04. INJURY TO A CHILD, ELDERLY INDIVIDUAL, OR DISABLED INDIVIDUAL. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual:
~ ~ (1) serious bodily injury;
~ ~ (2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or
~ ~ (3) bodily injury.
~ (b) An omission that causes a condition described by Subsections (a)(1) through (a)(3) is conduct constituting an offense under this section if:
~ ~ (1) the actor has a legal or statutory duty to act; or
~ ~ (2) the actor has assumed care, custody, or control of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual.


[edit on 15-2-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser

Are the Cheney / Bush haters really that desparate?!!? The 24 hour delay between the accident and the report is the smoking gun that could unravel the adminsitration?!!? Sheesh. If a categorical lie demonstrated by DNA on a blue dress didn't bring down the Clinton admin, then this one isn't even worthy of discussion along those lines.


Are you really comparing the bliss of oral sex to the misery of birdshot in the face, chest and heart?

It so typifies the difference between the parties, and the Dem's always have the fun party.

Edit: This is ATSNN, please watch the language.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   


I was wondering, if Cheney had of killed him by mistake instead of just injuring him, would Cheney go to jail? He would, right? Just like anyone else? Being 'up there' doesn't give you immunity and allow you to kill people with your gun right?


Not necessarily.

Saturday a 7 year old boy was killed in a hunting accident not far from where I live, no charges are expected.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Hmmmm, and the "Plot" thickens,




www.washingtonpost.com...



Armstrong contacted the Corpus Christi Caller-Times around 9 a.m. Central time on Sunday. Asked why the information was not disseminated on Saturday night, immediately after the accident, Armstrong said: "The last thing that was on our mind was the media. We were thinking about Harry."

Armstrong; her sister; Cheney; Whittington; and Pamela Pitzer Willeford, the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, went out on the ranch to hunt quail. Armstrong said the protocol they used was to have three hunters shooting at one time: While two sat in the hunt vehicle, the other three were hunting. They would then rotate.

The hunters, wearing bright-orange vests and caps, walked in a line across a pasture. From what Armstrong said she saw as she sat in the hunt vehicle about 100 yards from Cheney and the other hunters, Whittington walked back, away from the line, to look for a bird that he had shot but that a dog did not find.

He then walked forward toward Cheney, approaching from behind and to the right of him and the other hunter when the vice president shot at a quail and hit the lawyer.



Can someone PLEASE explain to me how this Armstrong woman can SEE everything that happened when she was sitting in the "hunt vehicle" 100 yards away and be a witness to (1) who did and didn't do what, (2) what was and wasn't said by the hunters that were shooting ?


They claimed that the field-grass was "TALL" , and Cheney DIDNOT see/know his friend was coming up from behind him and was 30 feet away from Cheney what he shot the man !

Correct me if I'm wrong here BUT (1) would not a person standing in "tall" grass be able to see someone that was only supposively 30 ft away and should of been able to here the person "walking" up to him, (2) more so than a person "sitting" in the hunt vehicle that was 100 yards away from the hunters in the field,(3) and if I'm not mistaken, a "quail's" movements in sound are a totally different sound than (4) the sound of a person walking through a field of "tall" grass ???

If I'm not mistaken,.... a man wading through tall grass would make MORE noise than a few "LITTLE" quails on the ground before taking flight. I find it hard to beleive that Cheney could not distinguish the noticable differences in a heavy-foot human walk from the little quails light-footed scampering, specially when quail are usually quiet and trying to hide when on the ground.




[edit on 16-2-2006 by nanna_of_6]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
It amazes me to see some members (jsobecky) continuing to blame the victim in this incident. Perhaps you should join your partisan buddies on the sidelines for the rest of this one? No offense, of course.


I was going to walk away from this thread, but this comment changed my mind.

I'm not even going to kick your butt with better arguments of the Cheney incident. It would be too easy, and frankly, you're not worth it.

But I will stick around just to annoy you.



Edit: Insult removed.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Only once in all my hunting experience has a quail flushed toward me. It flew between me and my brother, who was 10-15 yards away, and we both swung on it, and held our fire, until the bird passed by us, then we both let loose at it.

The fact that you swung toward another hunter with a loaded weapon shows that you are a poor excuse for a hunter. Your brother did the same thing, so you're both poor excuses for hunters.

Edit: Language.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Now I don't know if this has been reported in this Thread yet, but it sure is an interesting read - the Ballistics just do not Match the Official Story!


Prison Planet

It is not only unlikely that Whittington was injured in the way he reportedly was if Cheney had shot him from 30 yards it is impossible.

After reviewing the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife report on the shooting, there is no doubt that this is a cover-up.

The pattern of the birdshot depicted in the diagram on the report indicates about a foot spread from cheek to chest.

So at a distance of about 90 feet (or 30 yards as reported by the White House) the pellets would have hit Whittington with the force equivilent to a gentle shove and have left maybe some tiny surface marks on any exposed skin.

The only way to account for the pattern indicated on the TDPW report is if Cheney was about 10 feet away from Whittington when he shot him.

So, if the Ballistics tell us, that Mister Cheney was 10 feet Away when he Shot Mister Whittington, because that is the Only Way, that he could get those kind of Injuries, with this certain type of Bullet - why LIE?

Why the Coverup?

Smells Fishy...



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
At "10 feet" there would be no Mr. Whittington. 90 feet is very plausible.

Roper

[edit on 16-2-2006 by Roper]

[edit on 16-2-2006 by Roper]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The fact that you swung toward another hunter with a loaded weapon shows that you are a piss-poor excuse for a hunter. Your brother did the same thing, so you're both piss-poor excuses for hunters.


But when Cheney (after drinking beer) goes hunting and does the same thing... except he proceeds to discharge the weapon and shoot the guy, he's not a piss-poor excuse for anything. In fact, it is the victim of the shooting who was in the wrong... He must be a piss-poor target.


Originally posted by jsobecky
The old lawyer was in the wrong, not announcing himself when he rejoined the party.


As regards the ballistics, everything I've seen indicates that Cheney was much more than 10 feet from his target. More than 6 meters, in fact. Prison Planet seems to be exaggeration this one. But 30 yards (in my opinion) is an exaggeration of the opposite extreme. I'd say more like 10 yards.



-- 3-6 meters: Shot charge still intact with few pellets that wander off the center point of damage. Penetration is deep.
-- Within 6 meters: tissue destruction similar to that of a high velocity missile. Massive tissue destruction. Pt injured by intact charge acting as a single projectile.
-- Greater than 6 meters: Wound caused by the spray of low velocity pellets acting as separate missiles with superficial damage


Shotgun Wounds



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join