Vice President Dick Cheney Shoots Hunting Colleague

[arnisador]

I agree that this was principally an accident, though some level of carelessness can probably be attributed to both the Vice President and the person who was shot.

In arnis we are instructed that it is our duty to be aware of where our weapons are in relation to bystanders/other students/etc.; of course, it's also their duty to pay attention for swinging sticks!

 

[Makalakumu]

I can see the internal memo that goes out in the RNC after one their fundraisers was shot by the VP...

"Quit your slacking and get to work..."

upnorthkyosa

ps - that's a joke...ducks.

 

[Martial Tucker]

The Straw Man argument being raised is that 'one moments carelessness is what caused this accident'. Certainly, we all might experience 'one moments carelessness when driving an automobile'.

A couple of reasons on why I attempt to not take this bait.

1 - Range - A vehicle must make contact with a person or thing to create damage. A firearm has a greater range with which to make contact with a person or thing.

2 - Momentum - A vehicle in motion is subject to physical laws that can make preventing impact with a person or thing impossible. Birdshot pellets only acquire momentum on the action of the holder of the firearm.

3 - Multiple Parties - Vehicle accidents often occur with multiple vehicles, with multiple parties taking actions and reactions. With a firearm, because the afore mentioned range and momentum, the responsibility is weighted to the person with greater range and potential energy.

As one constructs the straw man argument, he will try to account for these factors. But, in so doing he is creating a dis-similar situation.

1- Range - A firearm is typically dangerous over a range of a few hundred yards, even less for a shotgun, as in the case highlighted. If you are drunk or chatting on your cell phone, you could easily cover a range of many miles while directing a 2 ton fast-moving object, all the while having no idea what's going on around you.

2 - Momentum - Yes, birdshot pellets only acquire momentum on the action of the firearm holder. How is this different from a car? If your car is in the habit of driving down the street by itself, you need a mechanic, if not an exorcist. Newton's law does not depend on WHAT is in motion.
At least a car, once it acquires momentum, can still be steered to a great degree by the driver. This makes a hypothetical driver who retains control of his "projectile", say, someone named Ted Kennedy, even more culpable than a mistaken hunter, who cannot steer his projectile away if it is suddenly headed towards danger.

3 - Multiple Parties - Hunting accidents often occur with multiple hunters, with multiple parties taking actions and reactions. (Your statement, I just substituted "hunting/hunters" for "vehicles".) The statement remains valid.
And I would argue that a 2 ton piece of iron travelling upwards of 65 mph has a far greater range and potential energy than any hunting projectile.

 

[michaeledward]

1- Range - A firearm is typically dangerous over a range of a few hundred yards, even less for a shotgun, as in the case highlighted. If you are drunk or chatting on your cell phone, you could easily cover a range of many miles while directing a 2 ton fast-moving object, all the while having no idea what's going on around you.

2 - Momentum - Yes, birdshot pellets only acquire momentum on the action of the firearm holder. How is this different from a car? If your car is in the habit of driving down the street by itself, you need a mechanic, if not an exorcist. Newton's law does not depend on WHAT is in motion.
At least a car, once it acquires momentum, can still be steered to a great degree by the driver. This makes a hypothetical driver who retains control of his "projectile", say, someone named Ted Kennedy, even more culpable than a mistaken hunter, who cannot steer his projectile away if it is suddenly headed towards danger.

3 - Multiple Parties - Hunting accidents often occur with multiple hunters, with multiple parties taking actions and reactions. (Your statement, I just substituted "hunting/hunters" for "vehicles".) The statement remains valid.
And I would argue that a 2 ton piece of iron travelling upwards of 65 mph has a far greater range and potential energy than any hunting projectile.

As I mentioned, you can construct your straw man argument in such a way as to make 'one moments carelessness' fit the argument.

Let me break out another way to explain how they are dissimilar.

How many hunting accidents happen in a year? In Texas, there were 4 fatal hunting accidents in the year 2004, and 25 non-fatal accidents in the year 2004. These accidents occur in a limited hunting season.

My company is one of three major companies that works with automobile accidents. On any given day, Insurance carriers submit well over 5,000 total loss vehicle inspection reports in North America. Those reports account from a bit over 1/3rd of the industry related only to auto accidents that are severe enough to potentially be a total loss. (my company handled over 1.5 million such requests during our FY '04)

The frequency difference between hunting accidents and auto accidents is another reason why this Straw man argument should be rejected.


At any time you want to get back to hunting accidents (and it should be an accident free activity, in my opinion), just go right ahead, ok?

Now, look ... you've gone and got me to gank up this thread more.

 

[Brother John]

One of the reasons it is getting so much play is because everything Richard Cheney does is political. He is the Vice President of the United States. Some here have argued that the President never gets a vacation, because the Presidency travels with him. Well, certainly that argument must hold true for this Vice President. It is widely acknowledged that he is the most powerful VP in history.

I really, Really think that that's a pretty Big stretch!
Everything R. Cheney does is political? So if he makes a Ham on Rye at midnight for himself, that's a political sandwich? That's a political act?

Also: What makes this VP THE most POWERFUL?
I'd never heard that one. They've all been poweful by virtue of the office.

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

I really, Really think that that's a pretty Big stretch!
Everything R. Cheney does is political? So if he makes a Ham on Rye at midnight for himself, that's a political sandwich? That's a political act?

OK, if the Vice President does not carry the office with him where ever he goes ... can we turn the coversation to the number of days of vacation the President has taken while in office?

And if the VP choked on that sandwich, you bet it would be a political sandwich.

Also: What makes this VP THE most POWERFUL?
I'd never heard that one. They've all been poweful by virtue of the office.

Your Brother
John

Constitutionally, the Vice President has very little power. Officially, he will over see the Senate. In the event of a tie vote in the Senate, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote.

As for the power this Vice President has, I would direct you to the Adminstration Energy Policy (scripted by Cheney), the White House Iraq Group (formed by Cheney). Look at the how often the VP visited the CIA in the lead up to the Iraq war (a highly uncommon event).

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031013/13cheney.htm

 

[Martial Tucker]

Now, look ... you've gone and got me to gank up this thread more.

You gave this thread it's "momentum", so you're responsible for where it goes!

 

[michaeledward]

You gave this thread it's "momentum", so you're responsible for where it goes!

No. We are all responsible for where this thread goes. That is what discussion is all about really. I hope I have sufficiently explained the 'Straw Man' argument. It has been very familiar lately.

I believe, as I mentioned earlier, hunting should be a zero-accident-activity. When uncertain, you don't pull the trigger. In this case, Mr. Cheney was uncertain where Mr. Whittington was. When Mr. Whittington separated from the hunting party, the weapons should have been brought up; further attempts to raise game should have ceased.

 

[Henderson]

I know I'm a little late on this one, but, my thoughts are two-fold...

1. You NEVER go down-range without announcing yourself. Anyone that says otherwise is a fool, has no experience with firearms, or is just plain stupid.

2. You must ALWAYS be 100% sure of your target. If you can't see it, do not squeeze the trigger.

They are both to blame.

 

[shesulsa]

I know I'm a little late on this one, but, my thoughts are two-fold...

1. You NEVER go down-range without announcing yourself. Anyone that says otherwise is a fool, has no experience with firearms, or is just plain stupid.

2. You must ALWAYS be 100% sure of your target. If you can't see it, do not squeeze the trigger.

They are both to blame.

I agree.

 

[MHeeler]

I believe, as I mentioned earlier, hunting should be a zero-accident-activity. When uncertain, you don't pull the trigger. In this case, Mr. Cheney was uncertain where Mr. Whittington was. When Mr. Whittington separated from the hunting party, the weapons should have been brought up; further attempts to raise game should have ceased.

I think your argument breaks down here. How can ANY activity be accident-free? There is never a moment in any individual's life during which s/he is completely risk-free. Life is inherently risky. The probabilities of random chance always leave one open to the possibility of accidents.

In a situation where people are handling firearms, the likelihood of greater injury increases in the event of an accident. In this particular case, I think the point is that Mr. Cheney was certain at the moment he fired his weapon. Obviously, he was wrong. As they say, to err is human. In any case, in this particular situation, it would be impossible to be certain of every variable at all times. The moment any one of the hunting group turned his head or blinked, he could not be absolutely certain as to his companions' positions. He could not be absolutely certain that one of his companions would not stumble into the line of fire unexpextedly. Etc, etc. There is a certain risk inherent to every activity. As soon as this group of hunters began their hunt, each of them accepted the risk inherent to their day of quail hunting.

As an experienced hunter, Mr. Cheney probably was certain that nothing was beyond his target, which is why he felt safe to fire. Granted, I don't know this to be a fact, but to assume otherwise is to accuse him of attempted murder. Unless someone is prepared to go down that road, the entire discussion is moot.

MH

ps: As this is MartialTalk, let's pose a different kind of hypothetical: If a martial arts instructor injured a student/training partner or had a student/training partner get injured during a class, should that instructor then not be allowed to teach martial arts ever again?

 

[michaeledward]

I think your argument breaks down here. How can ANY activity be accident-free? There is never a moment in any individual's life during which s/he is completely risk-free. Life is inherently risky. The probabilities of random chance always leave one open to the possibility of accidents.

In a situation where people are handling firearms, the likelihood of greater injury increases in the event of an accident. In this particular case, I think the point is that Mr. Cheney was certain at the moment he fired his weapon. Obviously, he was wrong. As they say, to err is human. In any case, in this particular situation, it would be impossible to be certain of every variable at all times. The moment any one of the hunting group turned his head or blinked, he could not be absolutely certain as to his companions' positions. He could not be absolutely certain that one of his companions would not stumble into the line of fire unexpextedly. Etc, etc. There is a certain risk inherent to every activity. As soon as this group of hunters began their hunt, each of them accepted the risk inherent to their day of quail hunting.

As an experienced hunter, Mr. Cheney probably was certain that nothing was beyond his target, which is why he felt safe to fire. Granted, I don't know this to be a fact, but to assume otherwise is to accuse him of attempted murder. Unless someone is prepared to go down that road, the entire discussion is moot.

MH

As soon as Mr. Whittington left the hunting line, all of the guns should have been raised. For Mr. Cheney to be certain at the time he pulled the trigger would have demanded that Mr. Whittington had re-joined the hunting line. He had not, therefore, certainty could not be established. The first error occurred when the hunters did not stop their hunt as Mr. Whittington went to retrieve his quarry (where were the dogs?).

Of course no activity can be 100 % safe. One of the Texas hunting reports from 2004 recorded an accident where the hunter was injured when his dog stepped on the firearm in the boat. We can not ascribe to the canine the act of 'pulling the trigger'. Although, this accident could have been prevented by properly stowing the weapon for transport.

Another accident imaginable could result from an ammunition round behaving outside the norm. It has been decades since I last loaded a shell (used by a friend on the skeet range). It seems to me that a shotgun shell could malfunction.

So, while my standard is, truly, impossibly high; the circumstances of this weekend past are not beyond that standard. Poor judgement was exercised on the part of the Vice President. The only way to guarantee the recurrance of that poor judgement is to revoke the privilege.

 

[Brother John]

OK, if the Vice President does not carry the office with him where ever he goes ... can we turn the coversation to the number of days of vacation the President has taken while in office?

And if the VP choked on that sandwich, you bet it would be a political sandwich.http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031013/13cheney.htm

OK, first off the Vice President is always the Vice President, no matter where he is. But Not everything that he does is a fulfillment of his political office and responsibilities....therefore he does not drink a "political" can of pepsi. When calling an old friend on the phone to congratulate him on the birth of his first grandson he does not make a political call, he gives a personal one. When he kisses his wife it is not a political kiss.
When he engages in his hobby (hunting perhaps) it is Not a political outting.
When he sneezes, it is not a "Sneeze of Office".

Then also your argument attempting to compare this hunting trip with an old friend (which had nothing to do with his political office) to the work that President Bush has done in places other than Washington DC.....which IS Presidential work, work directly fulfilling the duties of his office.....Flopped; as most any "Apples to Oranges" comparison will.

And no, choking on the sandwich wouldn't make the creation of the sandwich a "Presidential act" (or "vice-presidential act" as the case may be), nor does it make it a political sandwich. I REALLY thought you were joking there! Seriously.
It makes it a politically significant event when an important politicians life is in jeopardy... but it still wouldn't make the thing a "political sandwich".

Sorry man, you've ceased being realistic now and the further you reach in grasping at straws...the more you tip your hand that you are mustering up a fist full of "Political Hay".

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

Clearing brush in a desert is a Presidential Act? Riding a bike is a Presidential Act? Didn't the military almost shoot down a plane, and evacuate the white house over an errant Cessna .... and the President wasn't even informed.

In the past, I have decried the President taking vacations. He has spent more than 365 days of his five years in office at Crawford, Camp David, or in Maine. Yet, when this point is raised, people refute the point with "He is the Office".

What, then, is the difference with the Vice President?

To tell you the truth. I would like these guys to be able to take a reasonable vacation - literally - turn off all the trappings of office. I think that would be good for our government. But, C-plus Augustus, can't seem to find 'reasonable' on the scale. I think he is clocking 10 weeks of vacation a year. (That's the act of an alcoholic).

So, I am kind of in favor of the Veep being able to go play with the birds for a couple of weekends during the year. No press, just a little graft among friends. Except when the vacation turns into a horror story. At that point, the duties of the Vice President of the United States take over. As I recall, he works for me, right?

Do you think the police would have let you or me grab a good nights sleep before being questioned?

 

[Brother John]

Clearing brush in a desert is a Presidential Act? Riding a bike is a Presidential Act? Didn't the military almost shoot down a plane, and evacuate the white house over an errant Cessna .... and the President wasn't even informed.

In the past, I have decried the President taking vacations. He has spent more than 365 days of his five years in office at Crawford, Camp David, or in Maine. Yet, when this point is raised, people refute the point with "He is the Office".

What, then, is the difference with the Vice President?

To tell you the truth. I would like these guys to be able to take a reasonable vacation - literally - turn off all the trappings of office. I think that would be good for our government. But, C-plus Augustus, can't seem to find 'reasonable' on the scale. I think he is clocking 10 weeks of vacation a year. (That's the act of an alcoholic).

So, I am kind of in favor of the Veep being able to go play with the birds for a couple of weekends during the year. No press, just a little graft among friends. Except when the vacation turns into a horror story. At that point, the duties of the Vice President of the United States take over. As I recall, he works for me, right?

As for clearing brush, riding a bike and all of that...
I never said that ALL Pres. Bush does while on those 'vacations' is a Presidential Act. (You said that Everything that the VP does is Political) I am saying, and have said in other discussions on the topic of Bush taking care of business while not in D.C., that he does still take care of business. Those who work to drum up reasons to besmirch President Bush try to make it seem like those trips are just him being lazy and excaping the duties of his office. ((in fact, it seems to me that you just insinuated that his taking things away from D.C. relates to his having been a drinker... kind of a low tac to take, don't you think? Yes or no, it's still innapropriate.)) Instead, important things are still handled while he's been on those trips. I personally think it's probably a good idea to handle the business of running the government away from the special interest marsh-lands of D.C.
NO... Not everything he did was "Presidential", and yes he is always the President.

Yet, when this point is raised, people refute the point with "He is the Office".
What, then, is the difference with the Vice President?

You're using the excuses of others on a person who hasn't used them. (me)
I don't refute these actions of his that you are bringing up with "He IS the Office". If your post was directed at me, please don't argue with a point that I didn't use and haven't attempted to make. If that comment was directed elsewhere, please point out to whom....so that you'll make sense.
Otherwise, this whole premise seems like..... how do you say........ a Straw Man argument.
Yeah....that's it.

Except when the vacation turns into a horror story. At that point, the duties of the Vice President of the United States take over. As I recall, he works for me, right?

His Personal outting on a weekend ended up being very horrible and unfortunate.... partially his fault, partially the fault of his friend. The "duties of the Vice President" are for when he is doing something that is "Vice-presidential". He wasn't, he was hunting with a buddy and had a horrible accident.
..and no, he doesn't work for you, he works for us..... Every American. I don't see what That has to do with his huntin accident.
He wasn't "Working" when it happened. It didn't occur in the oval office or in his own office.
It happened in a field.

I will say this, I do think that it should have been announced and explained much more promptly... but in the end, it doesn't impact our day or our government very much that it was delayed. It's just an easy field of political hay. IF IT HAD been handled better and had been announced Right away, I believe you'd still be on here... saying pretty much the same things, but with one less thing to hold up and say "SEE......SEE........!!"

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

Actually Mike, I was more or less commenting on how much heat and attention an "accident" seems to have drawn....not on your words in particular.

Some here have argued that the President never gets a vacation, because the Presidency travels with him.

Well, it seems when I make a general statement, you are interpreting it specifically. I apologize for any misunderstanding. But that is not a 'Straw Man' argument; it is a mis-interpretation. If we search the board a bit, we will find those arguments put forth by our colleagues here.

As for remarking that the Presidents' inability to find 'reasonableness' is the trait of an alcoholic; please understand that I am an alcoholic, I have been sober for more than 13 years. Identifying the behavior is something I can't escape, because it is a vital part of the 'treatment plan'. Rest assured, even if you feel it is 'low-road', I am not alone in that diagnosis.

As I mentioned, I think these government officials should be allowed some down-time (I supported the Renaissance Weekend for Clinton, and his trips to the Nantucket).

But, did the shooter receive special treatment because he was the Vice President of the United States? He was not interviewed until more than 14 hours had passed. If that is not special treatment, what is it?

IF IT HAD been handled better and had been announced Right away, I believe you'd still be on here... saying pretty much the same things, but with one less thing to hold up and say "SEE......SEE........!!"

Lastly, I can't help what you believe I would have done, if we had all heard about this on Saturday evening. I can understand that my political point of view does carry some baggage.

But, I can point you to this entire thread. Look carefully. I have not made (I hope) any jokes about it ... when many others have made it the punch line of the week, including the Adminstration. I have tried to restrain myself from drawing parallels from this accident to the rest of the adminstrations behavior (although some of that has appeared in these later posts). If you want to see that more clearly, look at the newpaper editorial comics ... there are many 'political' items that I have left off the table.

I think this shooting is about as significant politically as the hummers Clinton got from That Woman, Miss Lewinsky; not very. However, since it was a hunting accident, I believe strongly that the hunting privileges should be revoked.

 

[Brother John]

First off Mike, please let me say that I really respect you for having been sober for well over a decade! Seriously. You and I may but heads (or may BE buttheads.... HA!) on this issue or that, but if this is what you've done then it's a credit to your discipline and will beyond the average martial artist. I've never been hooked on anything beyond C8H10N4O2 (Caffeine) and fast women (both of which can make your heart race). But I've had extensive drug and alcohol counceling/training (being, technically a social worker...though my specific field is Juvenile corrections) and I know that you've really accomplished something.

When you brought this up, when juxtaposed with your strong dislike of President Bush and his administration, I thought you were taking the low road...
I'm still not fully convinced you weren't, as it really added Nothing to, nor is it even related to, this thread...but if you say that reflexively/compulsively pointing out behavior that Could theoretically be explained away as a feature of an addictive personality..Ok, I won't call you a liar. But that habit would probably come in very cumbersome at dinner parties, I'd think.

OK...back to our debate/discussion:

If we search the board a bit, we will find those arguments put forth by our colleagues here.

That may be, but I don't agree... not that they're technically wrong. The Executive Office cannot be separated from the man holding the office. BUT: when used in this context, to defend him going to Texas, it's off the mark. In my opinion, with today's technology and the far-reaching capabilities it provides, I think it's very reasonable to take business where you can think clearly and be at your best. If that's his home/ranch in Crawford... so be it.

But, did the shooter receive special treatment because he was the Vice President of the United States? He was not interviewed until more than 14 hours had passed. If that is not special treatment, what is it?

Agreed!! ((yes....I agreed with you Mike, Fully. now......take a moment to calm your breathing from that shock.... )) But I don't think that that "special treatment" would be or has been particular to THIS administration. I think it's a feature of how those in positions of authority in our society treat those in Higher authority with kid-gloves AT BEST. I don't agree with it, but it's how it goes...no use trying to deny it. But like I said, it's not because he's "Dick Cheney", it's because he's "Vice President Dick Cheney".

I can't help what you believe I would have done, if we had all heard about this on Saturday evening. I can understand that my political point of view does carry some baggage.

true, you can't help what I believe (one of the features of 'belief', 100% internal and subjective) ....but, given the sheer number of posts & replies you've written out against this President and his administration, in Great detail and with many words, and the fact that you seem to get Very heated concerning it....and currently seem to be pretty 'unreasonable' about it....I really don't think that my postulate is far off the mark.
And: By it's very nature....Anyone's "Political Point of View" carry's a great deal of baggage. Some set the baggage down for a bit to have a conversation, some swing it about like a cudgel. I actually think you may be somewhere in between... but you do do your share of cudgel swingin, in my book. From time to time, and probably on a much lesser scale, so have I. It's one of those reasons our culture has that saying about the things you shouldn't discuss at the dinner table.

I can point you to this entire thread. Look carefully. I have not made (I hope) any jokes about it

Ok... I didn't 'look carefully', I kind of willy-nilly zipped down the scroll-bar and happened upon (randomly) one of your replies, which you'd written in the 6 O'clock hour of the 13th... Here'tis:

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

No. You weren't making jokes about it; but you get darned snide and sarcastic...
I'd rather you did try to be funny than rude. I'm no saint or angel myself (ref: "Sneeze of Office"), but I'll admit it. I rather think that debates like this could use more levity than snideness. (snideness.....someone look that up...)

I have tried to restrain myself from drawing parallels from this accident to the rest of the adminstrations behavior (although some of that has appeared in these later posts).

As to your restraint, it failed...I think you said so yourself; and in that failure your animosity fueling this thread shown through clearly. (animosity toward the administration and anyone that supports it/agrees with it... Ref: the thread to the effect of "is anyone STILL a republican"...or something like that.)

If you want to see that more clearly, look at the newpaper editorial comics ... there are many 'political' items that I have left off the table.

I hardly seek truth or a social barometer in the 'comics'. The comics that get published are there to support the views of the papers management and owners. I don't believe in a generally unbiased media at all. (not saying "left-leaning" nor "right-leaning"....but I do believe BIAS is the rot that spreads throughout the media's barrel of apples, in this country and others) AND: The comics, generally, are put there to pin-point contraversy like a pressure point (HEY...a martial arts reference, and on Martial Talk no less...wow) and stir people up. It sells papers, period. I turn to the funnies for a laugh, or a warm fuzzy (family circus has more meaning now that I'm a father of two)...but not a guide on political sentiment.

Besides: pointing out that you COULD have done more or done worse, doesn't mean that you didn't do bad at all.... just that you could have done worse. It'd be like having a person being sentenced for a murder conviction and his lawyer pleading for leniency because..."He could have done Worse! He could have murdered 9 people instead of just two... so have mercy."

I think this shooting is about as significant politically as the hummers Clinton got from That Woman, Miss Lewinsky; not very.

Well....one DID happen Repeatedly and wasn't just "delayed" in being released, but was covered up for a long time and lied about on many occasions.... even under federal testimony and to the Face of America as a whole. ONE happened repeatedly IN the OVAL OFFICE, while the President WAS acting as President...ie; on the job when he got the 'job', once happening while he was on the phone to the Pentagon and once while on the phone to the UN, the other happened on a weekend outing with an old friend in a field. One was, by a great many people's standards, extremely immoral and he desperately tried to sweep it under the rug in dishonest and other immoral ways ...while the other one was an accident that was deeply regretted and didn't require a special investigation and damning evidence to finnaly uncover the truth.
I don't think that Lewinsky was accidentally 'in the way' when that gun went off., and I don't think that Mr. Clinton didn't know where she was; neither were the repeated and emphatic lies under oath and on TV, and no doubt to his wife, accidental. OR when he asked others to lie for him....etc. etc.
But if these are the things that don't seem "too different" from a weekend hunting accident between two old men in a field, based on confusion and poor judgement...then simply released too late....but was released in full...
I'd Hate to see what you think would be "exactly the same".
wow...

However, since it was a hunting accident, I believe strongly that the hunting privileges should be revoked.

Like I said, that may be. I really don't know and don't care... I'm not against nor for hunting. I am, however, all for the follow through of the law... and think that IF that's what would happen to your or me, it Should happen to him. But like we both agreed upon before, it probably wouldn't...being as how he's the VP. (same for Any VP)

Honestly Mike, I think it's kind of funny or odd that you're wasting this much keyboard time on this matter. Seeing as how you like to highlight and emphasize the blunders or mistakes or whatnot of this administration... seems like they hand you enough Real Hay without you needing to inflate this issue MUCH bigger than it really is....
a hunting accident between two old men, where they both shared in the fault.

Your Brother
John

 

[MHeeler]

As soon as Mr. Whittington left the hunting line, all of the guns should have been raised. For Mr. Cheney to be certain at the time he pulled the trigger would have demanded that Mr. Whittington had re-joined the hunting line. He had not, therefore, certainty could not be established. The first error occurred when the hunters did not stop their hunt as Mr. Whittington went to retrieve his quarry (where were the dogs?).

I think you misunderstood my point...or, more likely, I failed to clearly explain my point. I meant to say that certainty only exists in the mind. One can never truly establish certainty in any realistic setting. Reality simply does not allow for it.

Of course no activity can be 100 % safe. One of the Texas hunting reports from 2004 recorded an accident where the hunter was injured when his dog stepped on the firearm in the boat. We can not ascribe to the canine the act of 'pulling the trigger'. Although, this accident could have been prevented by properly stowing the weapon for transport.

Another accident imaginable could result from an ammunition round behaving outside the norm. It has been decades since I last loaded a shell (used by a friend on the skeet range). It seems to me that a shotgun shell could malfunction.

Glad to see we agree on something. :asian:

So, while my standard is, truly, impossibly high; the circumstances of this weekend past are not beyond that standard. Poor judgement was exercised on the part of the Vice President. The only way to guarantee the recurrance of that poor judgement is to revoke the privilege.

By your own admission, your standard is unrealistic. Still, I DO agree with you that errors were made during Mr. Cheney's hunting trip. I think that should be obvious to anyone...well, anyone who can remain objective and use a little common sense. However, if you mean to use one instance of "poor judgement" as a criterion for revokation of a privilege, absolutely no one would ever be allowed to hunt again. (And, if you expand that rule, then none of us would be allowed to do ANYTHING ever again.) As humans, we ALL tend to lapse into poor judgement every now and then. No one is immune this. As I said earlier, to err is human. Expectations of completely error-free activity simply don't take into account our own human nature.

Thanks,
MH

 

[Flying Crane]

I must admit, I have not read all ten pages of this discussion so I apologize if I am raising an issue that was already discussed.

I heard that Mr. Cheney recently admitted on Fox News that he had a beer at lunch that day before they went hunting.

My father-in-law is a criminal defense attorney, and he commented that that is EXACTLY the comment that his clients make when they are accused of a crime, and later alcohol proves to be a significant factor in the situation. They always start out by trying to downplay the drinking, and make it seem insignificant.

Sort of makes you wonder, why the 14 hour delay in contacting law enforcement? Maybe these guys had been drinking, perhaps even during the hunt, and they needed time for the alcohol to leave their systems.

While most would agree that the use of alcohol with firearms and hunting is extremely irresponsible, anyone with any experience hunting knows that it is too often a reality.

It will be interesting to see how this situation develops.

 

[shesulsa]

And in all honesty, I wonder if he's supposed to have any alcohol whatsoever given he's likely on heart medication. For just about everyone I know who is on heart meds, alcohol is contraindicated. This might have affected his judgement more so than one beer might have for the average Joe.

I wonder how many his buddy had?