NEWS: Dick Cheney Accidentally Shoots Hunting Partner

Originally posted by Astronomer68
It's a good thing Dickey boy was using a girlie gun or he might have killed his friend. What a wimp the VP is to be using a 28 gauge.

That's right, Dick, be a man, use a 12 gauge. Who wants to eat what they shoot anyway?

You think he had in mind eating his friend after he shot him?

Originally posted by theBLESSINGofVISION

This is the thread, which when pulled, could unravel the fabricated woolen socks of deception, which warm the tails of these snakes...

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.


Anyway back on topic before I get a warning. The MSM were all breathlessly trumpeting the fact today that Bush didn't know about the accident until hours afterwards and that the media was kept in the dark for 24 hours. So freaking what? Is that what our media has come to? Carping about how many hours, minutes it takes to tell the president that there was a hunting accident involving the VEEP, but that everyone is ok? Seems to me that they want it both ways. Report everything as it happens, regardless of whether it is accurate or not, demand instant repsonse, then critisize if it isn't accurate.

Case in point: The MSM was in full uproar mode within days of the Katrina disaster because money & assistance & information wasn't flowing to NO fast enough. The govt reacts in knee jerk fashion and does away with rules to speed up the process. Fast forward 6 months to today. Suddenly, the MSM is aghast that people defrauded the govt out of $M's because of the lax rules that *they* insisted upon.

That's all probably a rambling departure from the real topic, but I think it illustrates my general point that the MSM is just too full of themselves and this, as Grady said first, is a non-story.

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser
That's all probably a rambling departure from the real topic, but I think it illustrates my general point that the MSM is just too full of themselves and this, as Grady said first, is a non-story.

I take it you don't know much about the law, hunting or this story.

I suggest you read the whole thread, unless ignorance is your goal.

ATS's goal is to deny ignorance....conflict of interest.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Regenmacher]

Forgive me for asking, but what does MSM stand for?

It's on the news right now! cheney's hunting license might be invalid in Texas. Another case of the VP breaking the law?


It wouldn't be a first, giving prefered contracts to haliburton, haliburton stealing from the gov. , and republican's refusal to investigate.


I see a pattern!

Originally posted by bodebliss
I see a pattern!

The other pattern would be shooting before looking.
Seems going off half cocked to be a recurring theme of the Bush administration.

First official report released in Cheney hunting accident

More Questions Raised About Delay in Reporting Cheney Misfire

Funny how they can rule out Cheney wasn't drunk considering he didn't submit to a required blood alcohol test or saw the Sheriff.

Dead Eye Dick's Top 5 Excuses
1. I thought Harry was a"orange breasted turkey".
2. I didn't know the gun was loaded
3. Clinton made me do it.
4. No one told me which end of the gun the shot comes out of.
5. Iran did it, lets nuke'em!

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Regenmacher

ATS's goal is to deny ignorance....conflict of interest.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Regenmacher]

I guess my ignorance must be truly breathtaking because I don't see how "conflict of interest" is the problem. Please "deny ignorance" and explain it to me in crayon. Unless just being insulting is your goal.

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser
I guess my ignorance must be truly breathtaking because I don't see how "conflict of interest" is the problem. Please "deny ignorance" and explain it to me in crayon. Unless just being insulting is your goal.

Your displaying ignorance of the law.
I posted what Texas laws are being violated,
so read the thread and quit making excuses.

I think the boys had a few before going hunting and decided not to tell so as to not be charged with anything.

Can you imagine if Dick got shot??? Totally different story. They should investigate to see if Dick had something against this poor man. One never knows...Of course, we all know there are "cleaner" ways in this government to take someone out, so this was probably just an unfortunate little accident WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED IMMEDIATELY.

More to hide?

the problem is there is too much deception and bizarre behavior regarding this incident. first we have a 24 hour delay. The fact taht the Police were barred from interveiwing Cheany shortly after the incident. and the denial of knowledge from the white house part. The barring of anyone but family and medical staff knowiong the condition of Wllington other then he was in intesive care (and probly still is) and "feels fine"

There is not enough openess to dispel doubt that it was just an accidental shooting. But then again, this isn't the first time the Bush administration was able to cover things up so they didn't look bad

Have any of you seen the news reports showing a shot shell? What I saw on CNN was buck shot. (give me a break)!!!!!

Why does the media lie? People that have no clue will think the VP shot the man with a .30 pellet instead of 8 shot. Good ol'CNN.

Roper

RegenMacher, I believe you have misunderstood the Texas Penal Code.

I looked into this earlier in the thread, fully expecting to find that it's against the law to accidentally blow someone's face off in Texas. I was wrong, as you are now.

First of all, Section 6.03 defines culpable mental states as applicable to other laws, setting for the standards for laws which outlaw actions done "knowingly", "with intent", "recklessly", or "with criminal negligence".

Section 1.03 states

www.legaltips.org...
§ 1.03. EFFECT OF CODE. (a) Conduct does not
constitute an offense unless it is defined as an offense by statute,
municipal ordinance, order of a county commissioners court, or rule
authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute.
(b) The provisions of Titles 1, 2, and 3 apply to offenses
defined by other laws, unless the statute defining the offense
provides otherwise; however, the punishment affixed to an offense
defined outside this code shall be applicable unless the punishment
is classified in accordance with this code.

Section 6.03 is contained within Title 2. It is descriptive of circumstances; it does not establish an offense in and of itself, according to my understanding of the above section. To find a criminal offense, you have to look under Title 5- offenses against the person.

You accused the VP of Deadly Conduct, but I already disproved that. Section 22.05b stipulates knowingly firing at others, and therefore the mistake of fact defense afforded by Section 6.01 applies, as does the definition of "knowingly" provided by 6.03.

You could go for Assault (actually Aggravated Assault- 22.01 and 22.02), which can be committed knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly per the requirements of 6.03, but not negligently. This means you must prove awareness.

Sections 6.01 and 8.02 are linked in my post on page 2

Here's the entire Texas Penal Code too- you should read it before you accuse anyone else of ignorance.


Edit to add: please don't mistake this post for condoning stupidity. If I wrote the law, stupid would be a Class A Misdemeanor; In fact Intent to Commit Stupid would be the same. What Cheney did was stupid, and yes, possibly, negligent, but negligence is not a culpable state of mind for the applicable offenses in Texas. I don't write the laws, I just report then on ATSNN.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Regenmacher



Bzzt wrong answer, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200:
You had better report shooting someone by accident or you will be charged with criminal negligence or worse. Same goes for running someone over with a car.

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.

Another aspect is what was Cheney really shooting at if Whittington "just" bagged a bird. These quail must be deaf and don't scatter for 100's of yards like the ones I have hunted, when you discharge a shotgun in the area.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Regenmacher]

Nope. YOU are the one who is WRONG.

"recklessly" is a point of contention for a grand jury, in texas.

Do you see the repeated phrase 'knowingly'?????

(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of . . .

. . . (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.

And by the way, why did you leave out section (a) in the quote you lifted? Or does the paragraph begin with (b).

Unless a district attorney can convince a grand jury that Cheney was reckless, it is a misdeomenor anyway. And even then, everyone who was present says cheney didn't do this knowingly.

.

I don't hunt, but even I know not to shoot the person you are hunting with. Isn't Cheney supposed to be a big game hunter? Maybe he has moved on to the most dangerous prey of all, Lawyers!

New info! The birds were TAME This was a place where Quail are raised in captivity, wings clipped, and released in caged areas for people to shoot. How can Cheney/Bush Bots say this was an accident? It's like "accidently" shooting someone while target practicing as this was just that, target practice! "The paper target flapped in a non-existent wind so I turned around and shot thre guy behind me."

[edit on 13-2-2006 by DevinS]

How about injuring someone while commiting an illegal act?

What illegal act?


Hunting w/o a proper license, of course.








[edit on 2/13/2006 by bodebliss]

For Christ's sake, the guy he shot was a lawyer; give him a medal not a lot of grief.

Originally posted by bodebliss
How about injuring someone while commiting an illegal act?
[edit on 2/13/2006 by bodebliss]

I understand that there is a lot of confusion about this, because of the way that news coverage of political figures on both sides is often handled where the law is concerned, but bear with me.

It's not illegal unless there's a law against it.

What about blowing somebody's face off? What about not knowing the difference between a lawyer and a quail? What about just plain deserving to be guilty of something?

It is not impossible that Cheney faces some kind of consequence related to his license, but find the code, don't just throw it out there. It's entirely possible that Cheney's license problem, regardless of complications, does not carry any criminal charges.

It could be a simple ticket for the license, and perhaps evidence in a tort case. If somebody wants to look for case law or something in the hunting laws that would make unlicensed hunting prima facie evidence of recklessness, now that's something to check into. There are still loose ends to tie up, for sure.

None of them, however, involve just stating something that we feel he did wrong and saying he should be charged with it. You've got to look at the circumstances, then at the law, and see if they match up to make any criminal offense.

Vagabond, failure of Cheney to perceive the risk could constitute criminal negligence.
www.uky.edu...

Also the accident couldn't be adequately investigated due to Cheney fleeing the scene, obstruction of justice, failure to submit to a blood test and/or the incident not being reported in a timely manner.

____________________________________________

Originally posted by dr_strangecraftAnd by the way, why did you leave out section (a) in the quote you lifted? Or does the paragraph begin with (b).

Look again, nothing is left out.

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.

www.bakers-legal-pages.com...

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Nope. YOU are the one who is WRONG.

"recklessly" is a point of contention for a grand jury, in texas.

The only wrong here is your grasp of reality in defense of a reckless scumbag.

Forgot about him fleeing the scene.
Forgot about his failing to report it.
Forgot about obstruction of justice.
Forgot about him not submitting to a blood test.
Forgot about him hunting illegallly.

The VP has proven he can lie and manage to skirt federal and state laws.
I suggest you not follow the same idiocy as the VP, unless you like prison.

Throw in that Kabuki dance by McClellan and it all smells like 10 day old carp.

Dick Cheney pulled the trigger against something he imagined, more than once. Habitual criminal in the making.


[edit on 13-2-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by DevinS
I don't hunt, but even I know not to shoot the person you are hunting with. Isn't Cheney supposed to be a big game hunter? Maybe he has moved on to the most dangerous prey of all, Lawyers!

New info! The birds were TAME This was a place where Quail are raised in captivity, wings clipped, and released in caged areas for people to shoot. How can Cheney/Bush Bots say this was an accident? It's like "accidently" shooting someone while target practicing as this was just that, target practice! "The paper target flapped in a non-existent wind so I turned around and shot thre guy behind me."

[edit on 13-2-2006 by DevinS]

There's just no excuse for shooting another person. If the cover is that thick, then wait. If the shot is that low, you probably won't make a wingshot, and will ruin the quail anyway.

I don't hunt 'clipped' birds on game ranches, since I'm not super-rich. Sounds lame to me. I hunt to fill the fridge. These guys obviously just want the thrill.

On the other hand, they're both in their seventies, right? They probably couldn't shoot anything on its own.

I can picture birds flying towards a group of hunters, if they are working their way up-wind, which is the best way to hunt. If the wind was 20 or 30 miles an hour, the birds will go with the wind to pick up speed, even if they fly TOWARD the hunter. I picture the other dude shooting from behind cheney, and him watching the birds fly over, and trying to draw a bead as they fly past him, and firing a late shoot.

If this guy wasn't horribly maimed, then he was probably 40 yds. or more behind cheney.

Things get confused in heavy brush.

Which is why I never hunt with more than 3 other people. That, and the fact that I don't trust more than 3 people on this planet to show up sober and awake for a real hunt.

The worst hunters I ever dealt with were a bunch of bankers from houston. They hadn't even fired a gun in a year. (I usually throw clays the week before a hunt.) These guys are desperate to tell their friends back at the firm that they at least FIRED at something.

One of my buddies was trying to scare up some pheasant that were hunkered down in light snow, and he threw his hat up. One of the bankers shot his hat.

That is the last time Dale or I ever hunted with strangers.

It sure makes me think that Cheney does't really hunt enough to handle a gun safely, or that he's not playing with a full deck, or that he was desperate to get a shot off before the hunt was over.