The 78-year-old lawyer who was shot by Vice President Dick Cheney in a hunting accident has some birdshot lodged in his heart and he had a “minor heart attack,” a hospital official said Tuesday.
Peter Banko, the hospital administrator at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial, said Harry Whittington had the heart attack early Tuesday while being evaluated.
He said there was an irregularity in the heartbeat caused by a birdshot pellet, and doctors performed a cardiac catheterization. Whittington expressed a desire to leave the hospital, but Banko said he would probably stay for another week.
Assuming the guy is ultimately okay, this will open up a whole new avenue for jokes about this incident, considering Cheney’s own heart troubles.
ASSUMING he is, yeah it will. / Obviously they are monitoring this closely. That’s why the cardiac catheterization, during which, as Letterman said to Regis (and which I Confirm from personal experience), they go in through the groin “very close to your Deal.” :>
The Corpus Christi doctor/spokeman, being hammered by the reporters as to What about This & what about That & What if such&such happens, finally replied to the query “WHAT ABOUT INFECTION?!?!?!” thusly: “Well what ABOUT infection? Infections can always HAPPEN! But you know What? If one Happens we’ll TREAT it!” WAW haw haw haw Hooray for da Doctuh! :)
Meanwhile our crackshot VPOTUS continues to Refuse to meet the press. He’s scheduled for a Speech on Friday in Wyoming. That’s It.
(btw as promptly predicted by Angrier & Angrier and by Mee, the Washington media is Slaughtering the White House over the 24-hour Delay in Announcing anything about the Shooting.)
If he dies due to complications of the shooting related injuries, does Cheney get charged with anything (involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc). If he does get charged and convicted, how does that affect his office? Can he still be Vice-President if convicted of that type of crime? Does he then get impeached even though its not related to his office?
Joe - I wouldn’t be quite so free to characterise the WH press corps(e)’s efforts as a slaughter - unless you mean in the sense of the corps(e) being slaughtered …
Since when is it the duty of *anyone* to hand the press stories on a platter ?
Yes, there can be business advantage to doing so … there can be political advantage to doing so …
Professional journalists get off their fundaments, and get out of the echo-chambers, and they go do what they are supposed to do - which is to hunt down stories and write about them …
If you watched the press conference yesterday, it is apparent that the Office of the VP is its own empire, unaccountable to the WH or anyone else. I personally think Cheney didn’t put anything out because he doesn’t believe laws and protocals that the rest of us live by apply to him. It’s pure arrogance. I wonder if he will actually shed a tear if this guy ends up dying.
I do agree with Alasdair in that the media is being ridiculous about this whole case and trying to promote a scandal where there is none. I tell the media what, when they grow some cajones and broadcast some muslim political cartoons, they can adequately decry information being withheld.
David -
Really it boils down to what happens politically. An impeachment, given that the primary driver is Congress is going to be political in nature, legal in structure. Any crime could be made as impeachable, question is if there is the political support to substaniate impeachment.
If not, he could always avoid charges legally until after he leaves office, then he would be indictable. At least, that’s my kneejerk reading of it.
well, wouldn’t failure to charge him indicate that Republicans are soft on crime? Reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter and hunting with out a license - and I’m not even a prosecutor. No person is above the law.
But guns sure do make it a whole hell of a lot easier to do so, and unlike cars (which gun-nuts love pointing out kill more people in accidents, ignoring completely the disparate amount of time and number of people who use each) guns primary purpose is to kill.
Heh. I’m not a gun owner, and don’t ever plan to be one, but I do support Second Amendment rights. I mean, hey, it’s in the Constitution. However, given the NRA cliche I cited above, the next thing that would leap into mind should Harry Whittington die would be, “Cheney killed a guy!” not “guns are dangerous!” That is, to answer your first comment in this thread, Cheney would be responsible (negligent homicide, perhaps?).
“I personally think Cheney didn’t put anything out because he doesn’t believe laws and protocals that the rest of us live by apply to him.”
Laws and protocols for the rest of us mean that I have to release a press alert if I am involved in a hunting accident? Emergency medical treatment alerted? Yup. Police Alerted? Yup. So what else needs to be done?
Your acting like an idiot. You have no idea of the circumstances and there has been nobody killed. Yet, your throwing around charges of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment.
Here’s a question: Did the sheriff’s office investigate? Yup. Their response? No charges necessary. Circumstances I hear is that Whittington approached the Cheney and his hunting partner without announcing himself and from below their line of fire. That would certainly be a case where it would not be his fault.
except that he was BEHIND THEM shooting BEHIND you is a shooting no no. ALSO Chenny fired out of turn. Just because the Sherif is a wimp does not mean that a crime - even if negligence - was not committed. The questions is would an average citizen be facing charges in a situation such as this - if the person they shot ultimately died of their wounds. Your kidding right Lojo?
Actually, before I get too hysterical, I think I’ll wait until the person who was hot gets to give *his* side …
If he says “I told ‘em where I was and he *still* shot me”, then that’s one thing …
If he says “I’m 78 and I plumb didn’t think I was close enough to need to tell ‘em - I’ll know to be more careful next time, perhaps contribute more !”, then it’s another story …
Given that the guy was/is/will be a contributor, would it not have been more appropriate if he had been hit from further away by $shot ? (buckshot)
a) “if the person they shot ultimately died of their wounds.”
Well, ya know, NOBODY HAS YET. So maybe if or when he does, we will see if charges DO get filed.
b) “Just because the Sherif is a wimp does not mean that a crime - even if negligence - was not committed”
So I’m supposed to believe you, who has not spoken with Cheney or the victim, or has seen the scene, or interviewed the other hunters, has a much firmer grasp on not only what happened, but who is culpable.
“except that he was BEHIND THEM shooting BEHIND you is a shooting no no.”
Not so, Dane. Not being an expert on quail hunting myself, I read the Slate article on hunting procedures. Relevant quote:
“In general, it’s OK for hunters to turn and shoot if they detect prey behind them. But if Cheney knew that Whittington had stayed behind, he should have held his fire”.
Thus, the shooting equitte rests on whether Whittington alerted his fellow hunters that he had moved behind them, rather than in line with them. But the mere fact that Cheney shot to the rear, rather than the front, does not mean he did anything out of line. As stated later on:
“If Whittington left to retrieve a bird, though, he should have announced his whereabouts to the group. It is not clear whether Whittington told his companions he was leaving, but according to Armstrong he did not signal his intent to rejoin the group. If that’s the case, Whittington violated a basic rule of hunting safety.
According to CNN and their NRA interviews, ultimate responsibility rests in the hands of the person firing the gun AND if you do not know where all members of your party are etiquette is to hold fire.
“Ultimate responsibility rests in the hands of the person firing the gun” is obviously a ridiculous statement on its face, since it doesn’t allow for variations on a case-by-case basis where such responsibility would be clearly inappropriate. It’s sort of like saying that a driver is always at fault in a collision with a pedestrian — well, what if the pedestrian deliberately runs out in the front of a moving car, giving the driver zero time to react? So if “CNN and their NRA interview[ee]s” really said that, they’re idiots. More likely, you misinterpreted them, leaving out the obvious fact that there are exceptions to the rule.
if you do not know where all members of your party are etiquette is to hold fire
What if you don’t know that you don’t know where all members of your party are? Are you required to do a headcount before each and every shot? “Hey, look! I see a bird! Hold on, where is everybody? Joe?” “Here!” “George?” “Here!” “Billy Bob?” “Here!” [continue for several minutes until everyone is accounted for] “Okay, great. Now… where’d that dang bird go?” Obviously, that’s absurd, and this would explain why it’s important to ANNOUNCE that you’re leaving before you leave…
I’m no hunting expert, but this is just common sense…
“A Gun’s primary purpose is to eject a projectile at very fast velocity.”
Lojo, speaking as a former handgun owner & a Moderate (not Fanatical) supporter of gun Rights, gun Rules, and gun Regulation, I’d say that the propulsion of a projectile (or in the instant case of Quail qua Quarry, a mini-Cloud of ‘em) at high velocity is the weapon’s programmed Means, not its End. / Of course the Primary purpose of the technology is to kill. (Or, in the Handgunowner’s preferred euphemism re the envisioned human Badguy, to “Stop”. / Stop, indeed. ) Targetplinking & suchlike are Secondary purposes, and basically Brushups for the Big One. :/ (Except perhaps in the case of the Speciality items manufactured specifically for competition target-shooting.)
As to the various hypothetical Indictments being Bruited about hereinabove: lawgeeks correct me if wrong but if there’s potentially an Infraction or a Crime here, hasn’t it ~ or Some of it at least ~ already been Committed? IOW, why does the possibility of charges along lines of Criminal Negligence, Reckless Endangerment & the Like depend on the incident ultimately proving to be Fatal?
Me, I am still Presuming the Veep’s innocence ~ not just Legally, but Factually as well. / But ~ still Provisionally too, as I said yesterday.
Re the issue of What would Happen if it were Just Some Guy instead of Cheney, I dunno but I think there are a helluva lot of Hunting accidents and I Doubt that somebody always gets Charged with something every time, including every time one has Deadly results. / I’m afraid there sometimes IS such a thing as an effectively Blameless accident.
With regard to whether Just Some Guy is required/expected to promptly summon the Press corps and Announce his Bad shot: No he is Not. :) That part of all this is (for once :) NOT a case of Cheney thinking he’s Above the Law when he should be treated just like Anyone Else. He is the Vice President of the United States and when something like this happens (what Other thing Like This could happen? I dunno :) he should NOT be treated just like anyone else. YES he has a Greater responsibility then Me or Thee. / He & the White House should have Put Out the story, to the National media, just as soon as Possible once the minimal, basic, facts were ascertained, after the Pellets had Settled, so to Speak. ;> (Sure, the press would then have Roared for more Detail, well why the Hell DON’T you have all the Answers yet when it’s been a full hour-and-a-quarter since the shooting, etc. ~ but, so What? Then the PRESS would have looked Stupid ~ again ~ instead of Cheney looking like he had something to Hide. / Again. :|
As long as Ted Kennedy is sitting in the Senate, negligently causing a death won’t be too big a deal, right?
At least Cheney et al reported it within the hour.
It’s up to the prosecuter whether to charge someone with a crime. Intent is no samll factor here, and the AP report definitely makes it sound like the shootee, not the shooter, was at fault. I have read a good arguement for hunting with dogs, not retrieving your own birds, hunting on foot, not using cars, hunting only in pairs,not groups, and when I go quail hunting, I plan on being a super safe quail hunter! Hope you all do too.
I think the press looks absolutely ridiculous. Pitching fits because nobody told them! Is it perhaps because this is a private matter, not a matter of state? VPOTUS wasn’t conducting state business, or with a visiting dignitary. Are we sure President Kennedy never caused an ankle fracture during a football game he participated in during his presidency? What exactly was the cause of Marilyn Monroe’s death?
Brendan, in correspondence with me my Cousin “Seamus” (not his real name ~ you know, the bigfat-lefty Intelligence Community guy :) pointed out that the soon-to-be Victim might well have hesitated to holler “Hey, boys, I’m right back here!” precisely for fear of spooking the Covey all too Soon. :> (And I think oul’ “Seamus” has probably Spooked a few Birds in his time, Himself, whilst Operating in the Field so he oughta know. :)
But this is not just Cheney. Your pointing out that criminal charges might be an issue here, but also saying that he should be telling the media what happened. If he has lawyers concerned about the possibility of criminal charges, I have a tough time beliveing they aren’t telling him to keep his trap shut until the country prosecutor announces his attentions.
But realistically, whether he made his case or not, would the media have painted this as anything but dark and foreboding about what is, as everything is pointing to right now, a hunting accident.
And besides, I still don’t understand why he owes the media a story when the shooter, shootee, sheriff all say there isn’t one. This wasn’t an energy commission or hearings on NSA programs, this was an accident during a recreational activity. Did Bush owe a press release as soon as he got the pretzel out of his throat, other than say, “Yes, I’m ok?”
As long as Ted Kennedy is sitting in the Senate, negligently causing a death won’t be too big a deal, right?
At least Cheney et al reported it within the hour.
Sorry, no dice, just because someone else did something wrong and got away with it doesn’t mean a second person should.
It’s up to the prosecuter whether to charge someone with a crime. Intent is no samll factor here, and the AP report definitely makes it sound like the shootee, not the shooter, was at fault
You are indeed right, it is up to the prosecuter and potentially the victim should he decide to press charges.
As for whos fault it is, yes the shootee might carry some part of the blame, but I have to imagine that a person with a gun is responsible for making sure within all reasonable means that he is not going to shoot another person. When you are out with a hunting party it seems to me that not knowing where someone in your party is and shooting at something that moves would violate that principle. Incidentaly the NRA’s web site states that it is the shooters responsibility to make sure he has positively identified the target.
“Your pointing out that criminal charges might be an issue here,…”
I’M not the ol’ Dog that Pointed that particular covey Out, Lojo. :) Others were the Pointers. Me, I just Set here & Axed me a Question about some of the Birdfeathers being cited. :>
“…but also saying that he should be telling the media what happened. If he has lawyers concerned about the possibility of criminal charges, I have a tough time beliveing they aren’t telling him to keep his trap shut until the country prosecutor announces his attentions.”
Waal if he Has so lawyered Up then I’d have a Tough Time Believing that too, Loj’, bein’ jes’ a ol’ country lawyer m’self though ah dew pay Attention sometimes. :) / Whereon, I think I shall rest my Case, yer Honor. :>
“…whether he made his case or not, would the media have painted this as anything but dark and foreboding…”
No, they would Not have. / Your point, I presume, is that they are Hostile to Cheney. I agree: they Are. / But had he Made his Case timely ~ and then Supplemented it As Appropriate ~ their hostility would look less Credible. IOW he has Handed them an Issue where ~ let us hope ~ there Need have been None.
“Did Bush owe a press release as soon as he got the pretzel out of his throat, other than [to] say, ‘Yes, I’m ok?’”
Other than that ~ plus wasn’t there some Cute part about the Dog? :) ~ no. He didn’t. / But That one was Self-inflicted by the Doofus. POTUS I mean, yehyeh that’s it, POTUS, heh-heh, by the President, he just Swallowed the wrong Way, that’s all, heh heh. / Well. Unless of course the damn Dog snuck up Behind him without Pointing out his presence & then Startled him with a Woof, heh heh, boy That would suck. ;>
You are indeed right, it is up to the prosecuter and potentially the victim should he decide to press charges.
You don’t really believe that latter part, do you David?
It’s up to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor alone, whether to “press charges.” A victim can’t “press charges,” no matter what inaccurate journalism and unrealistic TV shows might tell you.
A victim can sue in civil court, but that’s got nothing to do with “charges.”
When a crime victim or whatever “decides not to press charges,” in the media parlance, that is really just a request to the prosecutor (or to law enforcement, who would eventually hand the case off to the prosecutor if it got that far). And if the victim isn’t going to cooperate in the prosecution, generally it would be hard to prosecute, as a practical matter, so the victims’ wishes are generally followed. But it’s not the victim’s decision. And the victim certainly doesn’t have the power, as a practical or legal matter, to force a prosecutor to press charges when the prosecutor doesn’t want to, for whatever reason (not enough evidence, doesn’t think a crime was committed, not a winnable case, etc.).
There’s a reason why criminal cases are known as People v. ____ or State of [whatever] v. ____ or United States v. _____. For example, the O.J. Simpson case. It was People v. O.J. Simpson, not Nicole Brown Simpson v. O.J. Simpson or whatever. It is the PEOPLE of the state — represented by their elected attorney general, who has a team of prosecutors working for him — who “press charges.” It’s not the victim. (In federal cases, it’s the people of the United States of America, represented by Alberto Gonzales and, under him, the U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys.)
Now, the civil case would have been Brown v. Simpson or whatever. But not the criminal case. That’s just not how our system works. And the civil case doesn’t involve “charges.” Civil cases don’t involve guilt and innocence; the point of civil lawsuits is to figure out who should bear the financial cost of a given occurrence, not to “charge” people with committing a guilty act. That’s why the burden of proof is different, the jury (in some states) doesn’t have to be unanimous, etc.
There are a few white-collar type cases in which private citizens can take on a prosecutorial-type role, but for the most part, this whole “victim pressing charges” thing is just a really annoying misconception created by inaccurate terminology in the media. As you can maybe tell, it’s sort of a pet peeve of mine. :)
(If someone knows of additional exceptions or provisos that I’m not aware of, feel free to correct me.)
My point is that the Sheriff says there is no crime, only an accident. Cheney says there is no crime, only an accident. Cheney’s hunting companions says there is no crime, only an accident. Whittington says there is no crime, only an accident (via the incident report filed by Sheriff’s office).
Absent any further evidence of a crime, wrongdoing, or otherwise scandalous information, this is simply odd news. Yet, the media has blown it way out of proportion and now Harry Ried is demanding Cheney give a press conference. Why? Because the public deserves an, “I’m sorry?” The public doesn’t deserve that, Whittington does. And apparently he received it when Cheney contacted him in the hospital.
This seems far more like a media happy to get the criticism spotlight off them for their completely pooch-screw on the Danish Mohammed cartoon debacle and a general tickedoffedness at not being notified immediately upon the trigger getting pulled.
Birdfeathers ? You mean “Horsefeathers”, don’t you ?
Brendan - I wonder if the chief hissy-fit thrower of the White House Presse Corps notified the media that he was going to be throwing that hissy-fit ?
(grin)
(And we are *still* waiting for your explanation fo why *you* and your server were not *both* prepared for the full severity of Hurricane Katrina which *you*, yourself, were predicting ! And did you notify the White House Press Corps of your dereliction, Sirrah ?)
Bea - I think I could learn to like this posturing … (grin) … or is it imposture, Joe ?
Sorry, no dice, just because someone else did something wrong and got away with it doesn’t mean a second person should.
Sorry, no dice, David. Just because you were an idiot once doesn’t mean you have to repeat the mistake over and over.
rofl @ A&A’s Bon Jovi spoof!
Incidentaly the NRA’s web site states that it is the shooters responsibility to make sure he has positively identified the target.
Nobody is questioning that Cheney identified the bird and proceeded to shoot at it. How’s this relevant to anything?
But guns sure do make it a whole hell of a lot easier to do so, and unlike cars (which gun-nuts love pointing out kill more people in accidents, ignoring completely the disparate amount of time and number of people who use each) guns primary purpose is to kill.
A wise man once said, “God didn’t make all men equal; Smith & Wesson did.” I tend to think of the Founding Fathers seeing the 2nd Amendment as their ultimate ensurance of equality, since the prospect of a government which could adequately intervene in personal disputes as they occurred and turned potentially violent was A. not fathomable at the time, and B. not at all desired.
I’m sorry I’m back, but Cheney shooting a guy in the face is like throwing red meat to a pack of hungry wolves. I couldn’t resist.
FYI - Lawrence O’Donnell had a very interesting theory as to why this didn’t come out for 22 hours and why Cheney refused to be interviewed by the sheriff for 15 hours. Anyone remember the theory of why Teddy K walked away from the car? Yep. Cheney may have had one Lone Star too many on his huntin’ trip.
“I would like to notify the media that I have to pee.”
You Laugh, gentle readers; but that’s actually a reasonable Approximation of what he used to holler from the Top of the Stairs at our old Half-a-house in Hartford at about the Age of Three. :) Hi B. :>
Alasdair, you leave the Marx brothers out of this, ye scotnat commie Red. :) And No, I think it’s more like Composture. :) Yer ould Edinborough sheepshite, y’know. ;>
S&W Andrew: Taurus. Look Into it. (Never when Loaded, though. Neither It, nor You. :) / Nonono, not the Ford. Nor, thee Bool. :> (Hi, Bea. Yeah, it’s Brazilian. Eu sou pesaroso. :)
You’re question has to be clearer. One issue is what do you mean by “us” because the 2nd amendment clearly has reference to a “well regulated militia,” leaving aside for a moment all the neccessary qualifiers for what one means by that phrase and what the Founding Fathers meant by that phrase. Here’s the two ways I think your question could be read:
1. Under CURRENT Constitutional law, ” does the 2nd Amendment really give us the right to have a gun?”
2. When the Constitution was written, did the authors of that document think ” …the 2nd Amendment really [gave] us the right to have a gun?”
I know how I feel but I’m no expert on either.
And as for the issue of what the Founding Fathers meant by the phrase “well regulated militia,” my brother-in-law, whois a professor in the history of political science, says the answer has two solutions that have strong arguments on both sides.
The two solutions are either 1.) a “well regulated militia” meant the general public because at the time the document was written, the militia WAS the general public, or 2.) the phrase meant exactly what it says, i.e. a militia and NOT the general public.
You nailed it, even with my lack of clarity! I figured it was somewhere in the middle like that, and that both sides could argue what a milita was, based on wording and history.
Sorry, no dice, just because someone else did something wrong and got away with it doesn’t mean a second person should.
Sorry, no dice, David. Just because you were an idiot once doesn’t mean you have to repeat the mistake over and over.
Nothing intelligent to say so you resort to insults, way to go Andrew.
So you are saying that anytime someone in one party commits a crime that someone in the other party gets to commit a crime of equal or lesser value? Is this some kind of freakin blue light special?
BULL.
If Cheney commited a crime he commited a crime, period. If he should be prosecuted for it it should be because of the circumstances around this situation. It does not matter whether or not Kennedy gotaway with something, that is the responsibility of the people of the time, and whether they did something wrong or not has no bearing on this incident. Likewise if Cheney did something wrong, and gets away with it, that doesn’t mean a democrat who does something wrong in the future should get away with it too. I’m sorry but any other argument is just plain stupid.
Here’s the bottom line about all this mess as a friend wrote to me in an email, quoting:
“Here’s what I’d like to know. If it was me who accidentally shot my hunting partner, then refused to allow the local sheriff to interview me, what would be the legal implications for me? I would imagine I would be in very serious trouble, since of course if I was drunk when the incident happened, I could be charged with manslaughter if the the victim happened to die. How exactly is it legally that Cheney is allowed to refuse an interview with the sheriff? Isn’t he supposed to follow the laws as does any ordinary citizen?”
How can this society possibly be becoming more and more obese given all the exercise we see happening here with so many folk jumping to conclusions ???
“Now here is what happened as we currently know from the Cheney incident:”
There is currently no evidence he was drunk. Is it more logical to assume he was drunk or that he wasn’t?
Now, in the latest interview with Fox (You can check MSNBC.com also if you like. Frankly, the Fox news website gives me hives), he says he had one beer at lunch. This is evidence of alcohol consumption, but the witnesses and the ranch owner are adamant that no drinking happened while hunting and that ‘one beer’ is how much they recall.
Whether you want to run with that or not is up to you, but on its face, I have trouble thinking one beer got a man of Cheney’s size, legally intoxicated.
I said it was something we ‘currently’ know. Currently, as is now. Tomorrow, if a breathlyzer comes out that says he was drunk to all shits begone, we will KNOW different.
No Lojo, it means we DON’T know. Given that there is evidence that alcohol was served it is a question. We DON’T know either way. We don’t know it, we don’t currently know it.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
February 14th, 2006 at 2:21:08 pm
ASSUMING he is, yeah it will. / Obviously they are monitoring this closely. That’s why the cardiac catheterization, during which, as Letterman said to Regis (and which I Confirm from personal experience), they go in through the groin “very close to your Deal.” :>
The Corpus Christi doctor/spokeman, being hammered by the reporters as to What about This & what about That & What if such&such happens, finally replied to the query “WHAT ABOUT INFECTION?!?!?!” thusly: “Well what ABOUT infection? Infections can always HAPPEN! But you know What? If one Happens we’ll TREAT it!” WAW haw haw haw Hooray for da Doctuh! :)
Meanwhile our crackshot VPOTUS continues to Refuse to meet the press. He’s scheduled for a Speech on Friday in Wyoming. That’s It.
(btw as promptly predicted by Angrier & Angrier and by Mee, the Washington media is Slaughtering the White House over the 24-hour Delay in Announcing anything about the Shooting.)
February 14th, 2006 at 2:33:05 pm
Here is a question.
If he dies due to complications of the shooting related injuries, does Cheney get charged with anything (involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc). If he does get charged and convicted, how does that affect his office? Can he still be Vice-President if convicted of that type of crime? Does he then get impeached even though its not related to his office?
February 14th, 2006 at 2:42:48 pm
Joe - I wouldn’t be quite so free to characterise the WH press corps(e)’s efforts as a slaughter - unless you mean in the sense of the corps(e) being slaughtered …
Since when is it the duty of *anyone* to hand the press stories on a platter ?
Yes, there can be business advantage to doing so … there can be political advantage to doing so …
Professional journalists get off their fundaments, and get out of the echo-chambers, and they go do what they are supposed to do - which is to hunt down stories and write about them …
February 14th, 2006 at 2:46:59 pm
Dana Milbank in his Highway Worker’s Safety vest is a hoot.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:03:23 pm
Shot through the heart, and you’re to blame - Cheney, you give guns, a bad name!
Sorry. Had to do it.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:06:28 pm
If you watched the press conference yesterday, it is apparent that the Office of the VP is its own empire, unaccountable to the WH or anyone else. I personally think Cheney didn’t put anything out because he doesn’t believe laws and protocals that the rest of us live by apply to him. It’s pure arrogance. I wonder if he will actually shed a tear if this guy ends up dying.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:15:59 pm
Even if he does shed a tear, you can be sure he’ll looked pissed off while he does so.
LOL on the song.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:20:37 pm
Joe -
I do agree with Alasdair in that the media is being ridiculous about this whole case and trying to promote a scandal where there is none. I tell the media what, when they grow some cajones and broadcast some muslim political cartoons, they can adequately decry information being withheld.
David -
Really it boils down to what happens politically. An impeachment, given that the primary driver is Congress is going to be political in nature, legal in structure. Any crime could be made as impeachable, question is if there is the political support to substaniate impeachment.
If not, he could always avoid charges legally until after he leaves office, then he would be indictable. At least, that’s my kneejerk reading of it.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:23:02 pm
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:41:12 pm
well, wouldn’t failure to charge him indicate that Republicans are soft on crime? Reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter and hunting with out a license - and I’m not even a prosecutor. No person is above the law.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:43:28 pm
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
But guns sure do make it a whole hell of a lot easier to do so, and unlike cars (which gun-nuts love pointing out kill more people in accidents, ignoring completely the disparate amount of time and number of people who use each) guns primary purpose is to kill.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:48:42 pm
David:
Heh. I’m not a gun owner, and don’t ever plan to be one, but I do support Second Amendment rights. I mean, hey, it’s in the Constitution. However, given the NRA cliche I cited above, the next thing that would leap into mind should Harry Whittington die would be, “Cheney killed a guy!” not “guns are dangerous!” That is, to answer your first comment in this thread, Cheney would be responsible (negligent homicide, perhaps?).
February 14th, 2006 at 3:53:47 pm
umm, I like negligent homicide, that’s a stiffer charge then involuntary manslaughter.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:55:33 pm
Angrier -
“I personally think Cheney didn’t put anything out because he doesn’t believe laws and protocals that the rest of us live by apply to him.”
Laws and protocols for the rest of us mean that I have to release a press alert if I am involved in a hunting accident? Emergency medical treatment alerted? Yup. Police Alerted? Yup. So what else needs to be done?
February 14th, 2006 at 3:57:19 pm
Hey Con Law guys, does the 2nd Amendment really give us the right to have a gun?
February 14th, 2006 at 3:57:35 pm
David -
A Gun’s primary purpose is to eject a projectile at very fast velocity.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:04:59 pm
dcl -
Your acting like an idiot. You have no idea of the circumstances and there has been nobody killed. Yet, your throwing around charges of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment.
Here’s a question: Did the sheriff’s office investigate? Yup. Their response? No charges necessary. Circumstances I hear is that Whittington approached the Cheney and his hunting partner without announcing himself and from below their line of fire. That would certainly be a case where it would not be his fault.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:10:52 pm
except that he was BEHIND THEM shooting BEHIND you is a shooting no no. ALSO Chenny fired out of turn. Just because the Sherif is a wimp does not mean that a crime - even if negligence - was not committed. The questions is would an average citizen be facing charges in a situation such as this - if the person they shot ultimately died of their wounds. Your kidding right Lojo?
February 14th, 2006 at 4:33:30 pm
Actually, before I get too hysterical, I think I’ll wait until the person who was hot gets to give *his* side …
If he says “I told ‘em where I was and he *still* shot me”, then that’s one thing …
If he says “I’m 78 and I plumb didn’t think I was close enough to need to tell ‘em - I’ll know to be more careful next time, perhaps contribute more !”, then it’s another story …
Given that the guy was/is/will be a contributor, would it not have been more appropriate if he had been hit from further away by $shot ? (buckshot)
(grin)
February 14th, 2006 at 4:37:33 pm
dcl -
a) “if the person they shot ultimately died of their wounds.”
Well, ya know, NOBODY HAS YET. So maybe if or when he does, we will see if charges DO get filed.
b) “Just because the Sherif is a wimp does not mean that a crime - even if negligence - was not committed”
So I’m supposed to believe you, who has not spoken with Cheney or the victim, or has seen the scene, or interviewed the other hunters, has a much firmer grasp on not only what happened, but who is culpable.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0213061cheney1.html
Sorry if the sheriff’s office doesn’t agree with you.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:54:38 pm
“except that he was BEHIND THEM shooting BEHIND you is a shooting no no.”
Not so, Dane. Not being an expert on quail hunting myself, I read the Slate article on hunting procedures. Relevant quote:
“In general, it’s OK for hunters to turn and shoot if they detect prey behind them. But if Cheney knew that Whittington had stayed behind, he should have held his fire”.
Thus, the shooting equitte rests on whether Whittington alerted his fellow hunters that he had moved behind them, rather than in line with them. But the mere fact that Cheney shot to the rear, rather than the front, does not mean he did anything out of line. As stated later on:
“If Whittington left to retrieve a bird, though, he should have announced his whereabouts to the group. It is not clear whether Whittington told his companions he was leaving, but according to Armstrong he did not signal his intent to rejoin the group. If that’s the case, Whittington violated a basic rule of hunting safety.
Don’t be so quick to jump the gun, as it were…
February 14th, 2006 at 5:58:32 pm
According to CNN and their NRA interviews, ultimate responsibility rests in the hands of the person firing the gun AND if you do not know where all members of your party are etiquette is to hold fire.
February 14th, 2006 at 6:09:29 pm
“Ultimate responsibility rests in the hands of the person firing the gun” is obviously a ridiculous statement on its face, since it doesn’t allow for variations on a case-by-case basis where such responsibility would be clearly inappropriate. It’s sort of like saying that a driver is always at fault in a collision with a pedestrian — well, what if the pedestrian deliberately runs out in the front of a moving car, giving the driver zero time to react? So if “CNN and their NRA interview[ee]s” really said that, they’re idiots. More likely, you misinterpreted them, leaving out the obvious fact that there are exceptions to the rule.
if you do not know where all members of your party are etiquette is to hold fire
What if you don’t know that you don’t know where all members of your party are? Are you required to do a headcount before each and every shot? “Hey, look! I see a bird! Hold on, where is everybody? Joe?” “Here!” “George?” “Here!” “Billy Bob?” “Here!” [continue for several minutes until everyone is accounted for] “Okay, great. Now… where’d that dang bird go?” Obviously, that’s absurd, and this would explain why it’s important to ANNOUNCE that you’re leaving before you leave…
I’m no hunting expert, but this is just common sense…
February 14th, 2006 at 6:18:01 pm
Brendan - you bagged Becky, didn’t you ? You got your hunter cred right there ! (grin)
February 14th, 2006 at 6:47:35 pm
“A Gun’s primary purpose is to eject a projectile at very fast velocity.”
Lojo, speaking as a former handgun owner & a Moderate (not Fanatical) supporter of gun Rights, gun Rules, and gun Regulation, I’d say that the propulsion of a projectile (or in the instant case of Quail qua Quarry, a mini-Cloud of ‘em) at high velocity is the weapon’s programmed Means, not its End. / Of course the Primary purpose of the technology is to kill. (Or, in the Handgunowner’s preferred euphemism re the envisioned human Badguy, to “Stop”. / Stop, indeed. ) Targetplinking & suchlike are Secondary purposes, and basically Brushups for the Big One. :/ (Except perhaps in the case of the Speciality items manufactured specifically for competition target-shooting.)
As to the various hypothetical Indictments being Bruited about hereinabove: lawgeeks correct me if wrong but if there’s potentially an Infraction or a Crime here, hasn’t it ~ or Some of it at least ~ already been Committed? IOW, why does the possibility of charges along lines of Criminal Negligence, Reckless Endangerment & the Like depend on the incident ultimately proving to be Fatal?
Me, I am still Presuming the Veep’s innocence ~ not just Legally, but Factually as well. / But ~ still Provisionally too, as I said yesterday.
Re the issue of What would Happen if it were Just Some Guy instead of Cheney, I dunno but I think there are a helluva lot of Hunting accidents and I Doubt that somebody always gets Charged with something every time, including every time one has Deadly results. / I’m afraid there sometimes IS such a thing as an effectively Blameless accident.
With regard to whether Just Some Guy is required/expected to promptly summon the Press corps and Announce his Bad shot: No he is Not. :) That part of all this is (for once :) NOT a case of Cheney thinking he’s Above the Law when he should be treated just like Anyone Else. He is the Vice President of the United States and when something like this happens (what Other thing Like This could happen? I dunno :) he should NOT be treated just like anyone else. YES he has a Greater responsibility then Me or Thee. / He & the White House should have Put Out the story, to the National media, just as soon as Possible once the minimal, basic, facts were ascertained, after the Pellets had Settled, so to Speak. ;> (Sure, the press would then have Roared for more Detail, well why the Hell DON’T you have all the Answers yet when it’s been a full hour-and-a-quarter since the shooting, etc. ~ but, so What? Then the PRESS would have looked Stupid ~ again ~ instead of Cheney looking like he had something to Hide. / Again. :|
February 14th, 2006 at 6:57:40 pm
As long as Ted Kennedy is sitting in the Senate, negligently causing a death won’t be too big a deal, right?
At least Cheney et al reported it within the hour.
It’s up to the prosecuter whether to charge someone with a crime. Intent is no samll factor here, and the AP report definitely makes it sound like the shootee, not the shooter, was at fault. I have read a good arguement for hunting with dogs, not retrieving your own birds, hunting on foot, not using cars, hunting only in pairs,not groups, and when I go quail hunting, I plan on being a super safe quail hunter! Hope you all do too.
I think the press looks absolutely ridiculous. Pitching fits because nobody told them! Is it perhaps because this is a private matter, not a matter of state? VPOTUS wasn’t conducting state business, or with a visiting dignitary. Are we sure President Kennedy never caused an ankle fracture during a football game he participated in during his presidency? What exactly was the cause of Marilyn Monroe’s death?
Please–enough already.
February 14th, 2006 at 7:02:18 pm
Brendan, in correspondence with me my Cousin “Seamus” (not his real name ~ you know, the bigfat-lefty Intelligence Community guy :) pointed out that the soon-to-be Victim might well have hesitated to holler “Hey, boys, I’m right back here!” precisely for fear of spooking the Covey all too Soon. :> (And I think oul’ “Seamus” has probably Spooked a few Birds in his time, Himself, whilst Operating in the Field so he oughta know. :)
February 14th, 2006 at 7:06:34 pm
PS to BLL ~ “What if you don’t know that you don’t know where all members of your party are?” / Good point, Secretary Rumsfeld. :>
February 14th, 2006 at 7:07:22 pm
Joe -
But this is not just Cheney. Your pointing out that criminal charges might be an issue here, but also saying that he should be telling the media what happened. If he has lawyers concerned about the possibility of criminal charges, I have a tough time beliveing they aren’t telling him to keep his trap shut until the country prosecutor announces his attentions.
But realistically, whether he made his case or not, would the media have painted this as anything but dark and foreboding about what is, as everything is pointing to right now, a hunting accident.
And besides, I still don’t understand why he owes the media a story when the shooter, shootee, sheriff all say there isn’t one. This wasn’t an energy commission or hearings on NSA programs, this was an accident during a recreational activity. Did Bush owe a press release as soon as he got the pretzel out of his throat, other than say, “Yes, I’m ok?”
February 14th, 2006 at 8:03:45 pm
As long as Ted Kennedy is sitting in the Senate, negligently causing a death won’t be too big a deal, right?
At least Cheney et al reported it within the hour.
Sorry, no dice, just because someone else did something wrong and got away with it doesn’t mean a second person should.
It’s up to the prosecuter whether to charge someone with a crime. Intent is no samll factor here, and the AP report definitely makes it sound like the shootee, not the shooter, was at fault
You are indeed right, it is up to the prosecuter and potentially the victim should he decide to press charges.
As for whos fault it is, yes the shootee might carry some part of the blame, but I have to imagine that a person with a gun is responsible for making sure within all reasonable means that he is not going to shoot another person. When you are out with a hunting party it seems to me that not knowing where someone in your party is and shooting at something that moves would violate that principle. Incidentaly the NRA’s web site states that it is the shooters responsibility to make sure he has positively identified the target.
February 14th, 2006 at 8:33:22 pm
“Your pointing out that criminal charges might be an issue here,…”
I’M not the ol’ Dog that Pointed that particular covey Out, Lojo. :) Others were the Pointers. Me, I just Set here & Axed me a Question about some of the Birdfeathers being cited. :>
“…but also saying that he should be telling the media what happened. If he has lawyers concerned about the possibility of criminal charges, I have a tough time beliveing they aren’t telling him to keep his trap shut until the country prosecutor announces his attentions.”
Waal if he Has so lawyered Up then I’d have a Tough Time Believing that too, Loj’, bein’ jes’ a ol’ country lawyer m’self though ah dew pay Attention sometimes. :) / Whereon, I think I shall rest my Case, yer Honor. :>
“…whether he made his case or not, would the media have painted this as anything but dark and foreboding…”
No, they would Not have. / Your point, I presume, is that they are Hostile to Cheney. I agree: they Are. / But had he Made his Case timely ~ and then Supplemented it As Appropriate ~ their hostility would look less Credible. IOW he has Handed them an Issue where ~ let us hope ~ there Need have been None.
“Did Bush owe a press release as soon as he got the pretzel out of his throat, other than [to] say, ‘Yes, I’m ok?’”
Other than that ~ plus wasn’t there some Cute part about the Dog? :) ~ no. He didn’t. / But That one was Self-inflicted by the Doofus. POTUS I mean, yehyeh that’s it, POTUS, heh-heh, by the President, he just Swallowed the wrong Way, that’s all, heh heh. / Well. Unless of course the damn Dog snuck up Behind him without Pointing out his presence & then Startled him with a Woof, heh heh, boy That would suck. ;>
February 14th, 2006 at 8:42:35 pm
Sung to the Aerosmith song, “Janey’s Got a Gun”:
“Cheney’s got a gun
Cheney’s got a gun
The whole world’s come undone”
February 14th, 2006 at 8:44:23 pm
You are indeed right, it is up to the prosecuter and potentially the victim should he decide to press charges.
You don’t really believe that latter part, do you David?
It’s up to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor alone, whether to “press charges.” A victim can’t “press charges,” no matter what inaccurate journalism and unrealistic TV shows might tell you.
A victim can sue in civil court, but that’s got nothing to do with “charges.”
When a crime victim or whatever “decides not to press charges,” in the media parlance, that is really just a request to the prosecutor (or to law enforcement, who would eventually hand the case off to the prosecutor if it got that far). And if the victim isn’t going to cooperate in the prosecution, generally it would be hard to prosecute, as a practical matter, so the victims’ wishes are generally followed. But it’s not the victim’s decision. And the victim certainly doesn’t have the power, as a practical or legal matter, to force a prosecutor to press charges when the prosecutor doesn’t want to, for whatever reason (not enough evidence, doesn’t think a crime was committed, not a winnable case, etc.).
There’s a reason why criminal cases are known as People v. ____ or State of [whatever] v. ____ or United States v. _____. For example, the O.J. Simpson case. It was People v. O.J. Simpson, not Nicole Brown Simpson v. O.J. Simpson or whatever. It is the PEOPLE of the state — represented by their elected attorney general, who has a team of prosecutors working for him — who “press charges.” It’s not the victim. (In federal cases, it’s the people of the United States of America, represented by Alberto Gonzales and, under him, the U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys.)
Now, the civil case would have been Brown v. Simpson or whatever. But not the criminal case. That’s just not how our system works. And the civil case doesn’t involve “charges.” Civil cases don’t involve guilt and innocence; the point of civil lawsuits is to figure out who should bear the financial cost of a given occurrence, not to “charge” people with committing a guilty act. That’s why the burden of proof is different, the jury (in some states) doesn’t have to be unanimous, etc.
There are a few white-collar type cases in which private citizens can take on a prosecutorial-type role, but for the most part, this whole “victim pressing charges” thing is just a really annoying misconception created by inaccurate terminology in the media. As you can maybe tell, it’s sort of a pet peeve of mine. :)
(If someone knows of additional exceptions or provisos that I’m not aware of, feel free to correct me.)
February 14th, 2006 at 9:01:52 pm
Joe -
I love ya, sometimes. :-)
My point is that the Sheriff says there is no crime, only an accident. Cheney says there is no crime, only an accident. Cheney’s hunting companions says there is no crime, only an accident. Whittington says there is no crime, only an accident (via the incident report filed by Sheriff’s office).
Absent any further evidence of a crime, wrongdoing, or otherwise scandalous information, this is simply odd news. Yet, the media has blown it way out of proportion and now Harry Ried is demanding Cheney give a press conference. Why? Because the public deserves an, “I’m sorry?” The public doesn’t deserve that, Whittington does. And apparently he received it when Cheney contacted him in the hospital.
This seems far more like a media happy to get the criticism spotlight off them for their completely pooch-screw on the Danish Mohammed cartoon debacle and a general tickedoffedness at not being notified immediately upon the trigger getting pulled.
February 14th, 2006 at 9:03:09 pm
I would like to notify the media that I have to pee.
February 14th, 2006 at 9:10:36 pm
You should have told us 24 hours ago! Why were you hiding this?!
February 14th, 2006 at 9:14:16 pm
Birdfeathers ? You mean “Horsefeathers”, don’t you ?
Brendan - I wonder if the chief hissy-fit thrower of the White House Presse Corps notified the media that he was going to be throwing that hissy-fit ?
(grin)
(And we are *still* waiting for your explanation fo why *you* and your server were not *both* prepared for the full severity of Hurricane Katrina which *you*, yourself, were predicting ! And did you notify the White House Press Corps of your dereliction, Sirrah ?)
Bea - I think I could learn to like this posturing … (grin) … or is it imposture, Joe ?
February 14th, 2006 at 9:28:13 pm
“Cheney’s got a gun”! LOL!
I’m surprised it’s taken so long for that one to surface.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:02:14 pm
Sorry, no dice, just because someone else did something wrong and got away with it doesn’t mean a second person should.
Sorry, no dice, David. Just because you were an idiot once doesn’t mean you have to repeat the mistake over and over.
rofl @ A&A’s Bon Jovi spoof!
Incidentaly the NRA’s web site states that it is the shooters responsibility to make sure he has positively identified the target.
Nobody is questioning that Cheney identified the bird and proceeded to shoot at it. How’s this relevant to anything?
But guns sure do make it a whole hell of a lot easier to do so, and unlike cars (which gun-nuts love pointing out kill more people in accidents, ignoring completely the disparate amount of time and number of people who use each) guns primary purpose is to kill.
A wise man once said, “God didn’t make all men equal; Smith & Wesson did.” I tend to think of the Founding Fathers seeing the 2nd Amendment as their ultimate ensurance of equality, since the prospect of a government which could adequately intervene in personal disputes as they occurred and turned potentially violent was A. not fathomable at the time, and B. not at all desired.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:51:11 pm
The Daily Show actually used “Cheney’s Got A Gun” as one of their titles… still funny though.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:57:10 pm
I’m sorry I’m back, but Cheney shooting a guy in the face is like throwing red meat to a pack of hungry wolves. I couldn’t resist.
FYI - Lawrence O’Donnell had a very interesting theory as to why this didn’t come out for 22 hours and why Cheney refused to be interviewed by the sheriff for 15 hours. Anyone remember the theory of why Teddy K walked away from the car? Yep. Cheney may have had one Lone Star too many on his huntin’ trip.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:28:54 am
“I would like to notify the media that I have to pee.”
You Laugh, gentle readers; but that’s actually a reasonable Approximation of what he used to holler from the Top of the Stairs at our old Half-a-house in Hartford at about the Age of Three. :) Hi B. :>
Alasdair, you leave the Marx brothers out of this, ye scotnat commie Red. :) And No, I think it’s more like Composture. :) Yer ould Edinborough sheepshite, y’know. ;>
S&W Andrew: Taurus. Look Into it. (Never when Loaded, though. Neither It, nor You. :) / Nonono, not the Ford. Nor, thee Bool. :> (Hi, Bea. Yeah, it’s Brazilian. Eu sou pesaroso. :)
February 15th, 2006 at 5:37:34 am
Phead,
You’re question has to be clearer. One issue is what do you mean by “us” because the 2nd amendment clearly has reference to a “well regulated militia,” leaving aside for a moment all the neccessary qualifiers for what one means by that phrase and what the Founding Fathers meant by that phrase. Here’s the two ways I think your question could be read:
1. Under CURRENT Constitutional law, ” does the 2nd Amendment really give us the right to have a gun?”
2. When the Constitution was written, did the authors of that document think ” …the 2nd Amendment really [gave] us the right to have a gun?”
I know how I feel but I’m no expert on either.
And as for the issue of what the Founding Fathers meant by the phrase “well regulated militia,” my brother-in-law, whois a professor in the history of political science, says the answer has two solutions that have strong arguments on both sides.
The two solutions are either 1.) a “well regulated militia” meant the general public because at the time the document was written, the militia WAS the general public, or 2.) the phrase meant exactly what it says, i.e. a militia and NOT the general public.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:55:12 am
Nun,
You nailed it, even with my lack of clarity! I figured it was somewhere in the middle like that, and that both sides could argue what a milita was, based on wording and history.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:10:56 pm
Sorry, no dice, just because someone else did something wrong and got away with it doesn’t mean a second person should.
Sorry, no dice, David. Just because you were an idiot once doesn’t mean you have to repeat the mistake over and over.
Nothing intelligent to say so you resort to insults, way to go Andrew.
So you are saying that anytime someone in one party commits a crime that someone in the other party gets to commit a crime of equal or lesser value? Is this some kind of freakin blue light special?
BULL.
If Cheney commited a crime he commited a crime, period. If he should be prosecuted for it it should be because of the circumstances around this situation. It does not matter whether or not Kennedy gotaway with something, that is the responsibility of the people of the time, and whether they did something wrong or not has no bearing on this incident. Likewise if Cheney did something wrong, and gets away with it, that doesn’t mean a democrat who does something wrong in the future should get away with it too. I’m sorry but any other argument is just plain stupid.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:29:14 pm
Here’s the bottom line about all this mess as a friend wrote to me in an email, quoting:
“Here’s what I’d like to know. If it was me who accidentally shot my hunting partner, then refused to allow the local sheriff to interview me, what would be the legal implications for me? I would imagine I would be in very serious trouble, since of course if I was drunk when the incident happened, I could be charged with manslaughter if the the victim happened to die. How exactly is it legally that Cheney is allowed to refuse an interview with the sheriff? Isn’t he supposed to follow the laws as does any ordinary citizen?”
February 15th, 2006 at 2:13:30 pm
How can this society possibly be becoming more and more obese given all the exercise we see happening here with so many folk jumping to conclusions ???
February 15th, 2006 at 3:14:07 pm
Nun -
As I pointed out before, here is a listing of your friend’s if’s:
IF I had shot someone
IF I had been drunk
IF I the victim had died
IF I had refused to interview the Sheriff
Now here is what happened as we currently know from the Cheney incident:
Cheney shot someone
Cheney was not drunk
Whillington did not died
Cheney scheduled an interview that the Sheriff agreed with the next day
Hmm. Well at least the shooting part is similar.
February 15th, 2006 at 3:53:55 pm
Cheney was not drunk
I’ll give you the other three, but this one? I don’t know if he was or not, but neither do you.
February 15th, 2006 at 4:05:22 pm
David -
“Now here is what happened as we currently know from the Cheney incident:”
There is currently no evidence he was drunk. Is it more logical to assume he was drunk or that he wasn’t?
Now, in the latest interview with Fox (You can check MSNBC.com also if you like. Frankly, the Fox news website gives me hives), he says he had one beer at lunch. This is evidence of alcohol consumption, but the witnesses and the ranch owner are adamant that no drinking happened while hunting and that ‘one beer’ is how much they recall.
Whether you want to run with that or not is up to you, but on its face, I have trouble thinking one beer got a man of Cheney’s size, legally intoxicated.
February 15th, 2006 at 5:01:32 pm
I’m not saying he was or he wasn’t, you said that it was something we KNEW.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:46:14 pm
David -
I said it was something we ‘currently’ know. Currently, as is now. Tomorrow, if a breathlyzer comes out that says he was drunk to all shits begone, we will KNOW different.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:13:11 am
No Lojo, it means we DON’T know. Given that there is evidence that alcohol was served it is a question. We DON’T know either way. We don’t know it, we don’t currently know it.