|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/13/2006 : 19:25:04 [Permalink]
|
I got to disagree. The man with the gun that fired the shot is entirely responsible. Cheney took a shot that he could not, or at least should not have been certain of, and he obviously didn't know where his partners were. He was in an armed group and was not paying attention. And the really horrid aspect of it is that they weren't really in the field, where conditions and visuals change constantly, and one would not shoot a jillion birds. One would be either very lucky or highly skilled to get his state limit. They weren't hunting; they were running an easy-chair abatior.
No excuse; none!
On a happier note, perhaps Bush will go 'hunting' with him one day....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 20:03:33 [Permalink]
|
I think your very experience in competitive belly-gun matches gives you some serious skill in and insight into not shooting people, filthy.
What I like about this whole incident, aside from the wonderful and important opportunity of making fun of the Bush gang, is the way it accidentally provides a snapshot of the social and political connections of the rulers of the United States of Texas.
There are the three ladies. The ranch owner, the elder Armstrong, Anne, was a major Republican contributor, and was duely rewarded with an ambassadorship. As a member of the Halliburton Board of Directors, she hired Cheney as CEO. (That certainly was a "forward-looking" choice for Halliburton!) The younger Armstrong, Katherine, also has also given money to Bush and Cheney, and of course received political appointments in return. Pamela Willeford, like Anne, also got an ambassadorship to show for her Republican funding. Old man Harry "Birdshot" Whittington is a contributor himself, who was appointed by then Governor George W. Bush to clean up the mess after the previous head of the Texas funeral industry watchdog agency was fired for having dared fine violators.
A bunch of wealthy, very white, Republicans, who have shelled out money to Bush and Cheney, knowing full well they would be rewarded in return. All in all, a freeze-frame snapshot of cronyism and corruption.
You know people by the company they keep.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/13/2006 20:06:31 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 20:19:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, I can agree that Whittington may be partially, but not wholly responsible, if he didn't vocalize his approach. In most accidents, more than one safety step has been neglected.
But you did understand, Dude, that Whittington is being blamed precisely because he did approach from the rear, right?
I can't find anywhere in the articles I read where it stated that he was approaching from the rear.
quote:
filthy said:
I got to disagree. The man with the gun that fired the shot is entirely responsible. Cheney took a shot that he could not, or at least should not have been certain of, and he obviously didn't know where his partners were. He was in an armed group and was not paying attention.
If you approach a group of armed people and don't make sure they are aware of your presence.... you bear some of the responsibility of getting shot when they shoot you by mistake.
The guy wasn't a part of the party at the time, he had left it. He was in the process of rejoining it.
Worst case I can say is that they share equal blame for the incident.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 20:46:19 [Permalink]
|
Monday "Situation Room" transcript from CNN (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/13/sitroom.01.html):
quote:
And his answers were very much in line with what we were hearing from the vice president's office yesterday, and also what we heard and are still hearing from Katharine Armstrong. She is the private citizen, one of the owners of the ranch that Mr. Cheney was shooting at. And also was the person that was in charge of getting this information out. That was agreed to by the vice president and Mrs. Armstrong on Sunday morning.
To paraphrase the ending of Casablanca, "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful conspiracy." So Cheney and Armstrong slept on the problem, only deciding what the "official" version of the talking points would be the next morning, and also then appointing Armstrong as the crisis spokesperson.
Dude objected:
quote:
I can't find anywhere in the articles I read where it stated that he was approaching from the rear.
Good point. It took me a few minutes to backtrack and find that quote. It was from Katherine Armstrong, the spokesperson for the VP when he's shooting people.
(http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Third_hunter_revealed_in_Cheney_hunting_0213.html):
quote:
Ranch owner Katharine Armstrong told the Associated Press that after Whittington separated from the others to gather his kills, he "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself."
Also, please note that the two main "talking points" from Armstrong have been how little Whittington was hurt, and not mentioning Mrs. Willeford. I suspect that Pamela Willeford is central to whatever may be the hidden information I'm smelling.
Dude also said:
quote:
If you approach a group of armed people and don't make sure they are aware of your presence.... you bear some of the responsibility of getting shot when they shoot you by mistake.
The guy wasn't a part of the party at the time, he had left it. He was in the process of rejoining it.
Worst case I can say is that they share equal blame for the incident.
I've got no big problem with an assessment of 50-50 blame. That could be skewed quite a bit either way if we knew any real details, though.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/13/2006 21:04:38 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 22:23:25 [Permalink]
|
I finally got talked into getting my concealed carry license. I've been packing the S&W Airweight in the vehicle (legally) and on my person (not so legally) for some time, and the county sheriff has finally made an honest man of me.
When I drop that little boomer in my pocket, I assume a terrible responsibility. Amongst my loose change, I have the power of life and death, and I am quite skilled with a pistol; any pistol. I take this very damned seriously -- I cannot afford a mistake, and certainly the person I've shot cannot afford my mistake.
The same holds true with sport shooting. When you take up the rifle or the scattergun, you become totally responsible for every shot you take. If a load of your birdshot ends up in someone's face; someone who has meant you no harm, it is you who has committed the act, not your victim, accidental or otherwise.
If you are carrying a firearm, for sport or for protection, you have got to pay attention, and if you don't, the responsibility is yours and yours alone.
It is probable, highly probable, that I will never fire my "Saturday Night Special" in anger, although I had an incident a couple of years ago when I wished I'd had it, but didn't (and is the reason I'm carrying it today). But if it happens, my shot must the right one.
Cheney is an experienced marksman of many years. I've no doubt that this incident was a lapse in judgement, indeed, an abberition, on his part. However, that in no way negates his responsibility. And if alcohol was involved....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 22:52:09 [Permalink]
|
Congrats about the concealed carry permit! Good points, filthy. I'm glad you are a responsible gunman. Cheney wasn't -- that one, almost fatal, time.
Here's some additional points about the accident that I've collected:
CNN: quote:
While the state Parks and Wildlife Department issued Cheney a warning for not possessing a required stamp on his hunting license, the sheriff's department said there was "no alcohol or misconduct involved in the incident."
"This department is fully satisfied that this was no more than a hunting accident," the Kenedy County Sheriff's Department announced in a statement issued Monday evening.
Vice President Cheney was poaching!
Wonder how much later it was when the sherrif's department showed up? A couple of hours later, when the air ambulance was finally summoned? The next morning? Did they do a breathalizer test on Cheney?
Another from CNN:
quote:
Armstrong said no one discussed telling the public until Sunday morning, when she and her mother, ranch owner Anne Armstrong, raised the matter with Cheney. Saturday night, she said, "The only concern we all had was about Harry."
Then why the delay in getting Whittington to the hospital?
More from CNN: quote:
Dr. David Blanchard, the emergency room chief at Christus Spohn, said Whittington was hit by "many, many" pellets. But he said most of the wounds were "superficial at best," and many of the pellets would be left inside Whittington's body.
"Superficial at best? Yeah, the superficial ones were the best of the batch, I guess, especially compared to the ones that are being left deep in old Harry's flesh.
Even ER chiefs these days are apparently taking up Bush-Cheney doublespeak.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/13/2006 22:58:35 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 00:16:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"Superficial at best? Yeah, the superficial ones were the best of the batch, I guess, especially compared to the ones that are being left deep in old Harry's flesh.
Quail loads don't really pack alot of punch. A leather jacket would stop it at anything beyond 20 yards, and seriously mitigate any damage closer than that. You can't shoot little birds with something like goose/turkey loads or you'd just disintigrate them. In order to kill a human with quail loads, you'd have to shoot them multiple times at close range, or get very lucky with one shot. If they were 20 yards or more away from you, it would take a freak accident to do them any permanent harm, at 50 yards you'd be lucky to break their skin.
So yes, superficial is how you'd describe the damage of any quail shot hitting a person at more than 30 or 40 yards. I have no idea how far away the man was when shot, but is seems safe to say he wasn't real close if his presence wasn't detected by the other hunters. There were several of them.
filthy, I agree with your assessment of gun responsibility when it comes to your own defense. If you misjudge a situation, make a mistake, or otherwise screw up... you are the responsible party. You have to be totally right.
Hunting, and the idea of moving around when you absolutely know other hunters are nearby, is not the same situation. While Cheney has a responsibility to know what he is shooting, any person moving near a known hunting party has atleast an equal responsibility to make their presence known to the hunters. In the age of information technology, cellphones, pagers, 2way radios, etc... this should be simplicity itself. Equal responsibility with the guy who was shot is the most I can see putting on Cheney, and you all know I prettymuch despise him.
As for their practice of hunting farm-raised animals.... I fail to see what possible satisfaction is to be had. I would not engage in such an activity. No challenge, no fair chase.... it isn't hunting. I prefer to have the result of my hunts hang on my ability as a hunter, as opposed to the inability of the prey to even recognize danger. Shooting farm-raised animals is pathetic.
Half, ok, he walked up from behind. How then did he get shot? That makes very little sense. I can't ever recall a time when quail hunting that I, or anyone I was with, ever turned to the rear to fire. You walk forward, sometimes you have dogs out in front a bit to flush the birds, and take a shot at them as they get into the air. There won't be any birds behind you, and even if they fly right at you and over your head, if you turned to the rear to fire at them your shot would be very elevated. Makes me think that the walking up from behind statment isn't accurate.
I still don't see what the issue is. Both parties say it was an accident. There is a risk of a fatal accident during ANY type of hunting, and hunters are well aware of this. The local cops agree it was an accident. There is no serious injury to anyone. Accidents happen, fact of life. This isn't even a bad accident.
So... again, I ask... what is the problem here? Why does anyone care if Darth Cheney accidentaly shot one of his friends? Cheney is without remorse, but if that is something that suprises anyone all I can do is ask you where the hell you have been for the last 5 years.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 00:47:33 [Permalink]
|
Dude spoke: quote:
Half, ok, he walked up from behind. How then did he get shot? That makes very little sense. I can't ever recall a time when quail hunting that I, or anyone I was with, ever turned to the rear to fire. You walk forward, sometimes you have dogs out in front a bit to flush the birds, and take a shot at them as they get into the air. There won't be any birds behind you, and even if they fly right at you and over your head, if you turned to the rear to fire at them your shot would be very elevated. Makes me think that the walking up from behind statment isn't accurate.
I agree, Dude, that part doesn't seem right, and other parts of the official story seem less than believable as well.
I think that's exactly what's so fascinating about this whole thing: So much of the official story just doesn't seem to make sense. So, the question is, what is the truth that the lies conceal? Was Cheney drinking? Was there hanky-panky between Dick and Pam? Something else going on? Was there a Saudi royal, a prominent bible-thumper, or some other controversial person present that nobody wants mentioned? I sniff something rotten in the State of Texas, and I'd like to know what it is.
And that's the incident's importance, at least to me, as an unsolved, and possibly very imporant, mystery. Aside from it providing an inside snapshot of Republican power circuitry, and it being an irresistible opportunity to rag on Darth Cheney and pals.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 01:38:00 [Permalink]
|
Did any of you catch that these guys had just gotten out of their car?
So they drive up, get out and shoot at 500 farm raised quail that were released just for them to have something to shoot at. And since the article Starman found said they had already gotten 417 of those birds I imagine it isn't too hard to shoot them. I'm sorry but that just sounds sick to me.
I've been hunting and while I didn't really enjoy actually killing the animals, the hunt part was pretty fun. Just aiming at a bunch of birds someone put in front of you is like using squirrels and birds for target practice. I'm sorry but that really sucks. This particular group of rich bastards are just creepy. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 01:38:50 [Permalink]
|
Jon Stewart's Daily Show video about the accident can be found on this page:
http://www.bradblog.com/
Very funny stuff!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 01:56:14 [Permalink]
|
Various videos available here.
This topic seems to be popular today.
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 02:27:33 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the vid links, Starman!
The MSNBC news video was actually informative:
"The Sheriff came the next morning," said the Ranch owner, Katherine Armstrong, "and took a statement."
Also, one reporter grilling Scott McClellan, the White House Press Secretary, said in preface to a question that there was a report that "a Sherriff's deputy was prevented from interviewing the vice President by the Secret Service."
Sounds as if the "conspirators" only talked to the Sherriff's department once Whittington himself was out of sight, and that it took the boss Sherriff himself until the next morning to actually get to speak with Cheney himself. So, plenty of time to sober up overnight, and so much for an alcohol test. Makes you wonder what the statement from the Sherriff about no alcohol being involved was based upon, Cheney's word? The Sherriff is doubtless just another "good old boy" political flunky. I'm calling a cover-up alert.
Be spectated: quote:
Did any of you catch that these guys had just gotten out of their car?
Yeah, I caught that just tonight. Some Great White Hunters, eh? Pen-bred quail, just drive up and blast 'em, Bwana.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/14/2006 02:41:19 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 05:00:42 [Permalink]
|
Well Dude, you and I will have to agree to disagree. Again.
Your assesment of the effective range of a quail load is dead on, no pun, and that brings up the question of exactly how far away was Wittington when he got salted down (not to mention the other one: was he a doddering, old fool or perhaps a drunken one?).
For those who might be unfamiliar with them, a shotgun works thus: When the shot load exits the barrel, the pattern begins to develope. This is controled by the choke, a narrowing down of the barrel at the muzzle. There is a space, depending upon the choke, beyond the muzzle when the shot is tightly contained. Anything hit with it within that space aquires a single, large, very messy hole in his anatomy, whatever size shot was fired. After that, the shot goes into it's pattern, which gets looser with range until it has lost most of it's steam and is so loose that it is no longer effective. From a 28 gauge gun, that ain't all that far.
As Cheney was shooting a quail gun, I assume (hate that word) that it was choked either modified or improved cylinder. If it was a double barrel it probably had one improved cylinder and a modified for the second shot. Or a modified and full choke. You get a tad more effective range from tighter chokes. If a person is shot with a smooth-bore, a good, knowledgable ER nurse can pretty well make a guesstimate at the range by the pattern and penetration of the shot in his unfortunate carcass.
Which brings us to the meat & 'taters questions: how far away was Whittington when he got salted down? If he was close, a few feet, maybe, half his head might be missing. How badly was he hurt? How tight was the pattern when it hit?
Except for slug guns, a shotgun is not aimed. It is used rather like a firehose. The bird flushes and the gun follows it, and as the muzzle passes it, the gun is fired while the muzzle is still moving. So the pattern is not a tidy, round affair, but, depending on the angle of fire, is usually enlongated -- rather like the water from that moving hose going across a wall.
If Whittington is still in IC, he was likely quite close to Cheney and it could very bad, I think.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 05:41:11 [Permalink]
|
Begala's thoughts on the matter: quote:
VP Cheney, You're Lucky Those Reporters Aren't Hunters
By Paul Begala
As a guy whose been hunting in South Texas for 30 years, and who's been hunting three times in the past six weeks, I cringe at the Washington Post's use of the benign verb "sprayed" in the lede of the Cheney hunting accident story.
When you hit a man with a 28 gauge (likely 7 and a half shot) and land him in intensive care, you have not "sprayed" him. You've shot him.
I realize reporters were reliant wholly on Katharine Armstrong, Mr. Cheney's host, who laid the whole thing at Whittington's feet, but let me offer a few observations.
On the notion that a 28 gauge "shoots fewer pellets and has a smaller shot pattern than a 12 gauge," as the Washington Post reports: That's true. But no one hunts quail with a 12 gauge. A 12 gauge is used for high-flying, large birds like geese, ducks and pheasants. If you brought a 12 gauge to a quail hunt you'd be laughed off the ranch...and if you hit a bird there'd be nothing left but feathers and feet.
Second, was Mr. Whittington 30 yards away - as the Post reports - or 30 feet, as the Times reports? The difference is important.
Questions, questions, eh? I think that this story is only beginning to grow it's legs. Further, I want to know the extent of Whittington's injuries.
On a related note, I just read of another incompentent twit who shot a guy in the elbow. He mistook it for a squirell. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 07:57:00 [Permalink]
|
Cheney bears full responsibility. Some have said that Cheney did not know there was someone behind him - if he didn't know what was behind him then he shouldn't have shot. If you do not know if an area is clear - don't shoot in that direction.
If a bird flys behind you and your with a group you should never shoot in that direction, so what if the bird gets away.
My dad taught my brothers and I to quail hunt and the first thing he taught us is only shoot birds in FRONT of you.
Senile old fool...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
