Vice President Dick Cheney Shoots Hunting Colleague

[michaeledward]

Please read the articles that were posted. His immediate companions were with him. The other fellow was not part of their direct group, and was on his own.

This from the articles that were posted.

Katharine Armstrong, the ranch's owner, told The Associated Press that the accident occurred after Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of a car to shoot at a covey of quail.

The Vice Presient and Mr. Whittington were driving in the same car, but he was not an immediate companion?

Do you suppose they let just anyone get into the Veep's car?

Good Grief!

 

[sgtmac_46]

This from the articles that were posted.



The Vice Presient and Mr. Whittington were driving in the same car, but he was not an immediate companion?

Do you suppose they let just anyone get into the Veep's car?

Good Grief!

I note your refusal to explain what standard you'd prefer yourself judged under similar circumstances. That might be useful in furthering the discussion. It's a very simple and straightforward question.

 

[michaeledward]

I note your refusal to explain what standard you'd prefer yourself judged under similar circumstances. That might be useful in furthering the discussion. It's a very simple and straightforward question.

In similar circumstances, I would be very carefully following the rules of Hunter Education Classes taught througout the country.

Were I to discharge a firearm into another hunter, I would gladly have my license revoked for a lifetime.

 

[sgtmac_46]

In similar circumstances, I would be very carefully following the rules of Hunter Education Classes taught througout the country.

Were I to discharge a firearm into another hunter, I would gladly have my license revoked for a lifetime.

Not what I asked. You're driving your car down the road, adjust the radio, and bump a pedestrian, who walks in front of you. Do you turn in your driver's license for life? It is absolutely no different.

You are under the same kinds of obligation for careful behavior in a car as with a gun...and as cars kill far more people in the US than hunting accidents, it's extremely incumbent upon you to pay attention. They teach that in DRIVER's education, just like Hunter's education.

As you said you don't hunt, it's easy for you to judge a hunter's errors, but i'm sure you drive. A lifetime of driving gives a lot of opportunities for momentary errors. I don't think, being a driver, you'd want to to be judged by the same standard.

Do you want to answer THAT question? I doubt you'll answer.

 

[michaeledward]

Not what I asked. You're driving your car down the road, adjust the radio, and bump a pedestrian, who walks in front of you. Do you turn in your driver's license for life? It is absolutely no different.

You are under the same kinds of obligation for careful behavior in a car as with a gun...and as cars kill far more people in the US than hunting accidents, it's extremely incumbent upon you to pay attention. They teach that in DRIVER's education, just like Hunter's education.

As you said you don't hunt, it's easy for you to judge a hunter's errors, but i'm sure you drive. A lifetime of driving gives a lot of opportunities for momentary errors. I don't think, being a driver, you'd want to to be judged by the same standard.

Do you want to answer THAT question? I doubt you'll answer.

I'm sorry. I thought you asked about 'similar circumstances'. Let me check. . .

I note your refusal to explain what standard you'd prefer yourself judged under similar circumstances.

Yep... that's what I see ... similar circumstances. That is the question I answered, isn't it? Now, I did change the font, just for clarification. I think that is often noted as 'emphasis added'.

Silly me. I am talking about hunter safety. Discharging a firearm into your colleague.

And, just for the record, I do not think driving a car and hunting are 'similar circumstances', for a variety of reasons. Which is why I have not responded to this straw man argument.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Silly me. I am talking about hunter safety. Discharging a firearm into your colleague.

So you're suggesting it's ok to be negligent driving your car? That's comforting. I guess 'I don't like hunting, so there's a zero tolerance standard there, but I like driving, so I have a lot of tolerance for mistakes made driving' is the rule of the day. What you're talking about is holding someone to a standard you don't want held to yourself.

And, just for the record, I do not think driving a car and hunting are 'similar circumstances', for a variety of reasons. Which is why I have not responded to this straw man argument.

There is no quantitative difference between a 1 1/2 oz projectile and a 2000 pound projectile....with the exception that your 2000 pound projectile is inherently more dangerous. The 1 1/2 oz shot has the potential to injure or possibly kill another human being, during a moments inattention. Your 2000 pound projectile has the potential to hurt or kill numerous human beings during a moments inattention. The only real difference between these two projectiles is the emotional response they have on the part of some people. Yet, an emotional response is not a logical difference.

I say again, do you wish to be held to the same standard you are suggesting holding others too? Or do you prefer having two standards, one for you and one for someone you don't like?

I'll make this very simple. A yes/no question. Do you favor a life-time driver's license suspension if someone, during a moment's inattention, has a collision with another vehicle or a pedestrian? Yes/No.

I'd be interested in hearing an honest response. What I expect, however, is a dissertation on how they are different....the real difference being that you really don't want to be held to the standard you are suggesting.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Accidents do happen and it was sad that someone was shot. Thank goodness he is not hurt to bad. Cheney is at fault plain and simple he pointed his gun and discharged without verifying what he was shooting at. Does that make him bad, no. It does however make him careless in this one instance. Bottom line I do not care who you are but if you are not more careful when hunting then I do not want to hunt with you. To many people each year get hurt or killed because someone had a moment of carelessness. Cheney is probably a great hunter but he screwed up this one time. Hopefully it never happens again and his friend gets better and continues to hunt and enjoy the sport.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

 

[lhommedieu]

Michael, I'm going to explain the situation in a simpler sense, and if you have any questions on how hunting is conducted, I would certainly be more than happy to discuss this with you, and if you're ever in the Central Alabama area, I would certainly be happy to take you on a trip.

The area was clear, until the other fellow blundered into the area without announcing. If you were a hunter, you would know that birds get flushed out, and once you see them flushed out in the opening, you take the shot. You don't expect someone to pop into your sights when you're in the process of pulling the trigger.

It wouldn't be your fault if someone jumped into your previously clear picture, and unless you had superhuman reflexes, there would have been no way to stop the shot. You can't pin the blame on Cheney, because he did follow proper protocols. The other fellow did not.

It's no different than a pedestrian who jaywalks across a busy street, and gets hit by an oncoming car. The driver wouldn't be at fault, unless the pedestrian were at a designated crosswalk. Even though it's a driver's responsibility to be aware at all times, and that usually the driver is at fault when hitting a pedestrian, this is simply a case where no such fault would be assigned to the driver.

Quail are fast - lightning fast. They bolt unseen from underbrush without warning and you have to follow them with your eyes and the end of your shotgun in an arc of up to 180 degrees, at any height (in this case about six feet), at a very close distance, in about 1/4 second to get a shot off. That is, it's not like shooting a deer from a stand at 200 yards wherein you can clearly see the background - it's instinctive reaction to a stimulus (the quail flushing suddenly from cover.) at a close range. Furthermore, there are protocol for what to do if you come up to a line of hunters: as the hunter at the end of a line is allowed to swing his weapon to the side given that no one is supposed to be there, you announce your position.

If a fellow hunter suddenly appeared anywhere within that arc while you were shooting a quail you wouldn't know he/she was there as your eye is on the quail (foreground) not the background. Especially if he/she was in deep underbrush/grass. And didn't tell you he/she was there. Like he/she was supposed to.

From Reuters (February 12, 2006):

Katharine Armstrong, whose family owns the ranch, was a member of the hunting party and witnessed the accident.

She said Cheney, an experienced hunter, did not realize Whittington had rejoined the group without announcing himself, which is proper protocol among hunters.

``They had no idea he was there,'' Armstrong said.

``A bird flew up, the vice president followed it through around to his right and shot, and unfortunately, unbeknownst to anybody, Harry was there and he got peppered pretty good with a spray of 28-gauge pellets,'' Armstrong said in a telephone interview.

``He was turning, facing the vice president, but turning to the right, and it sprayed him across the right side of his face, his shoulder, his chest and along the rib cage area,'' she said.

Armstrong said Cheney's medical team attended to Whittington before he was taken to the hospital.

She described Cheney as ``an excellent, conscientious shot.''

``The person who is not doing the shooting at that moment in time is just as responsible and, should be, as the person actually shooting,'' Armstrong said.

Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said the vice president had been with Whittington at the hospital on Sunday.

``The vice president visited with Harry Whittington at the hospital and was pleased to see he is doing fine and in good spirits,'' McBride said.

Best,

Steve Lamade

 

[michaeledward]

Steve,

You are not claiming that quail travel at the speed of light, are you? The first statement in your post would seem to be hyperbole.

Also, whether Whittington did not follow proper protocol by announcing himself, or not, does not mean the person with the firearm is not responsible for their actions when they pull the trigger.

Do the Hunter Education Classes indicate that the shooter is absolved of their responsibilities when the quarry is a bird-fast quail?

I'ld love to have that conversation with the Conservation Officer.

Mike

P.S. Did you see the part where Ms. Armstrong, the owner of the ranch, had stated that she had been 'peppered' herself. It looks like they are removing that quote from many of the stories, but it was there in earlier stories.

http://smh.com.au/news/world/cheney...yone-else-ducks/2006/02/13/1139679534824.html

Ms Armstrong said Mr Whittington was knocked off his feet and was bleeding but did not lose consciousness. "This is something that happened from time to time. You know, I've been peppered pretty well myself."

 

[Martial Tucker]

P.S. Did you see the part where Ms. Armstrong, the owner of the ranch, had stated that she had been 'peppered' herself. It looks like they are removing that quote from many of the stories, but it was there in earlier stories.

http://smh.com.au/news/world/cheney-hunts-quail-and-everyone-else-ducks/2006/02/13/1139679534824.html

Yes, It appears that it has happened to her in the past. No where does it say or even imply that she had been shot in this incident or in the past by Cheney. It even says she was in the car when this incident occurred.
Your statement implies that Cheney has culpability in her previous injury, and that is worse than irresponsible. Jumping to ridiculous conclusions like this really undermines your credibility.

 

[rutherford]

Well, the quote doesn't seem immediately relevant. She seems to have meant that **** happens, and it wasn't a big deal. Anti-gun nuts will use the quote in a different way.

michaeledward, advance your agenda all you like, but be aware that this is exactly what you're doing. I dislike the VP a great deal, but as a pro-sportsman I can't see any foul play in this tragic incident. Happily, Harry Whittington will be ok.

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, It appears that it has happened to her in the past. No where does it say or even imply that she had been shot in this incident or in the past by Cheney. It even says she was in the car when this incident occurred.
Your statement implies that Cheney has culpability in her previous injury, and that is worse than irresponsible. Jumping to ridiculous conclusions like this really undermines your credibility.

I wonder why you feel that referencing this statement implies anything about the Vice President. I certainly didn't intend for anyone to draw that inference.

What the statement should imply, is that Ms. Armstrong is perhaps not running the safest hunting preserve. If people are regularly 'peppered' (or even infrequently 'peppered') with bird shot on her property, I might think about visiting a different hunting club.

Any different inferences you draw from my noting the quote, are not my intention. I don't believe I jumped to any conclusion. I reported a statment, that is mysteriously disappearing from the news reports.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, the quote doesn't seem immediately relevant. She seems to have meant that **** happens, and it wasn't a big deal. Anti-gun nuts will use the quote in a different way.

michaeledward, advance your agenda all you like, but be aware that this is exactly what you're doing. I dislike the VP a great deal, but as a pro-sportsman I can't see any foul play in this tragic incident. Happily, Harry Whittington will be ok.

rutherford, I am not advancing any 'foul play' from this incident. I think anyone who discharges a firearm into a person does not deserve the privilege of hunting.

If that is an agenda, it is a pro-sportsman agenda.

 

[Martial Tucker]

I wonder why you feel that referencing this statement implies anything about the Vice President. I certainly didn't intend for anyone to draw that inference.

What the statement should imply, is that Ms. Armstrong is perhaps not running the safest hunting preserve. If people are regularly 'peppered' (or even infrequently 'peppered') with bird shot on her property, I might think about visiting a different hunting club.

Any different inferences you draw from my noting the quote, are not my intention. I don't believe I jumped to any conclusion. I reported a statment, that is mysteriously disappearing from the news reports.

......................:bs:

 

[lhommedieu]

Steve,

You are not claiming that quail travel at the speed of light, are you? The first statement in your post would seem to be hyperbole.

Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second (in a vacuum at least - if not in Texas). If Dick Cheney could move that fast, I doubt that we'd have too many problems in Iraq.

As for hyperbole - I think that you're splitting hares. Let's ask someone else who hunts quail whether a split-second reaction time is an accurate description of how quickly you have to respond to a flushed quail.

Further, I'm not claiming that Vice President Cheney does not bear any responsibility for the shooting, but raise the issue as to whether he is at fault. As an analogy: if I'm heading down the highway at 65 mph and a deer bolts in front of my car and I hit it, then I bear responsibility for my action but I am not at fault (not unless I can see around corners in the dark, and can foretell the future, that is).

If the accident happened exactly the way that it is described in the press, then it was unavoidable, period. No amount of schoolmarmishly quoting hunter safety manuals is going to change that.

For a good movie with respect to hunting accidents and their consequences, I recommend "The Stone Boy," starring Robert Duval and Glenn Close. It puts a human face on something that most people can only consider in the abstract.

Best,

Steve

 

[Martial Tucker]

As for hyperbole - I think that you're splitting hares. Let's ask someone else who hunts quail whether a split-second reaction time is an accurate description of how quickly you have to respond to a flushed quail.

As for hyperbole, this entire thread is hyperbole. It was a simple, unintentional, and according to the owner of the property, not uncommon type of hunting accident. As I said earlier, if the shooter had been Kerry or Lieberman, this thread would have never happened. If the purpose of this thread was not political, as was stated earlier, the only other purpose of a thread like this would be
"Hunter Safety", and there have been countless stories in the past of similar instances that could have been selected for discussion.
What a bizarre coincidence that the originator of this thread didn't care enough about earlier hunting accidents to launch such a thread, but suddenly got very concerned about hunter safety when the errant hunter was a prominent politician with a different political outlook.

 

[Makalakumu]

When I was five years old, my father gave me a single pump bb gun so that I could practice safe gun handling while hunting with him. I did well for a long time, but I had an accident about a year later. As I was loading the weapon, I accidentally pointed it at my father. If it would have went off, I would have been in even deeper do do. As it was, my father "only" took the gun away and refused to take me hunting for a year. Since then, I've been very careful and concientious.

With that in mind, I could feasibly imagine a scenario where a law might be passed that would require gun owners who have accidents to "recertify" in some sort of safety course before they can get a hunting license again...or even before they buy another firearm. However, I can also see, too, the argument that could be made that this would infringe upon a person's 2nd amendment rights. So, I'm not sure if it would ever happen.

The bottom line is that accidents happen and accidents with firearms are often tragic, but they are still accidents. Sure, punishing someone forever for an accident would be a good way to reduce "repeat offenses" but I think a little education gives someone the benefit of the doubt. "Rehabilitation", in this context, seems appropriate.

 

[Martial Tucker]

I could feasibly imagine a scenario where a law might be passed that would require gun owners who have accidents to "recertify" in some sort of safety course before they can get a hunting license again...or even before they buy another firearm. However, I can also see, too, the argument that could be made that this would infringe upon a person's 2nd amendment rights. So, I'm not sure if it would ever happen.

The bottom line is that accidents happen and accidents with firearms are often tragic, but they are still accidents. Sure, punishing someone forever for an accident would be a good way to reduce "repeat offenses" but I think a little education gives someone the benefit of the doubt. "Rehabilitation", in this context, seems appropriate.

I think it's as much "re-education", and in the aftermath of an accident, I think it's entirely appropriate. I'm all for the right to own a firearm, but I think that before you can legally take it off of your property you should first have to pass a firearm safety class, with regular re-tests, just like driving. If you have an accident, your firearm should be limited to your home for a probationary period, during which you must recertify.

John, I've read enough of your posts in the past to comfortably infer that you are probably not a Cheney fan. As such, I do appreciate your level-headed analysis of this non-story.

 

[arnisador]

I am not a hunter because I am strongly opposed to guns.

In some states you can hunt with the atlatl.

I was in upstate Vermont when fishing

That's hunting to my mind.

I do not excuse the accident of the man who was shot, but it was not his actions that got him shot. It was Richard Cheney who pulled the trigger.

You have to be responsible for your own shot, I feel...but, while you're responsible for safe operation of your car, if someone darts into traffic from between parked cars, you may not have been in a position to do anything to keep from hitting him. Is it the same case here? I don't have enough information to know. It sounds like there is fault to go around.

I do not believe in faster-than-light quails. Like R.O.U.S.'s, they're a myth.

Some jokes and other fallout about this unfortuntae incident:

Guns don't shoot people. The vice president shoots people
[...]

 

[rutherford]

The fallout from this incident has been pretty spectacular. The majority of the "news" articles are comedy pieces.