Cheney shoots trial lawyer who 'gets in his way'.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!
Over here, there is a crime named something like "accidental causation of bodily harm". Is there such a crime in Texas, and is Cheney covered by immunity to criminal law?

No. Criminal liability for bodily harm (short of death) requires at least recklessness. There is liability for homicide if he was "criminally negligent."

There is (most likely) no immunity for a Vice-President. (For a federal crime, there would not be, for a state crime, I'm not sure, but still most likely no immunity--though I can see some arguments for immunity).

Personally, I think that anyone who causes bodily harm to a human with a firearm, and does not have legal right to do so (law enforcement, military, self-defence) should a the very least lose all weapon licences. Are there laws mandating loss of weapon licence for certain cases in Texas?

Not that I'm aware of--and it would probably be a Constitutional violation without some finding of culpability (at least negligence).

--Philistine

[D.O.A.R.]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Well, the main reason it is new is because it involved the Vice President of the United States making a supremely bonehead decision.

Speaking of which....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...audi_Gore.html

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060213

Although bonehead would not be the word I'd use.

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Then... the White House, in their typical, cover it up as much as possible continued to withhold info, which, of course, guarantees that every pencil jockey trying to make a scoop will be digging as deep as possible.

14 hours. Thats how long they waited before notifying the press. It was a hunting accident. They took the guy to get medical treatment first. Sheesh! Its not like driving off a bridge into the river and leaving your helpless passenger in the car.

Originally Posted by esskreemr

It has done an effective job of drawing the headlines away from the scathing Republican committee report on the federal failures during Katrina though... hmmmmmmm...

I'd say its done an effective job of drawing headlines away from the creator of the internet. hmmmm...

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

...Then... the White House, in their typical, cover it up as much as possible continued to withhold info, which, of course, guarantees that every pencil jockey trying to make a scoop will be digging as deep as possible....

I think this is as "funny" as the accident itself.

Think about it.

The press' job is to report news, and they are all pissed off that no one came and told them for 14/24 (whatever) hours? In affect, they are all a twitter because the administration did not spoon feed them information in real time? I wish I had a job where I could be indignint if someone else didn't do my work for me.

Regards,
Feltan

[Slim]

Originally Posted by D.O.A.R.

Speaking of which....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...audi_Gore.html

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060213

Although bonehead would not be the word I'd use.


14 hours. Thats how long they waited before notifying the press. It was a hunting accident. They took the guy to get medical treatment first. Sheesh! Its not like driving off a bridge into the river and leaving your helpless passenger in the car.



I'd say its done an effective job of drawing headlines away from the creator of the internet. hmmmm...

This does seem to have been conspicuously missing from the mainstream reporting. But then again, maybe no one really gives a $hite about Gore anymore. As revolting as his latest tirade is, he's old news.

[jeff]

The posts by Feltan and DOAR strike me as misdirected. The first is an attempt to draw attention away from the current VP having acted in a way that calls into question his competence and judgement. This isn't just a little thing - the VP shot a guy and then kept the news from coming out till later (did they think it would be minor lacerations and that they'd be able to keep it quiet?). That's a lot more newsworthy than Gore's remarks, which are not far out of sync with what the US military thinks: it did court-martial several people after all. Besides, as Slim points out so delicately, Gore aint newsworthy. If we're going to play the 'how can he cater to the Saudis' card, then we may as well bring up the 'George Bush let the bin Laden family sneak out of the country after 9/11' exercise too. If we're going to bring up Ted Kennedy, let's bring up "GWB the drunk" while we're at it. Got any other "timely" material while trying to change the subject from the Veep's blunder?

As far as the press not being 'spoon fed' - how the hell are they supposed to know about Cheney shooting somebody in a hunt held without press and on private property? No, they sat on it and hoped it would blow over, and left McClellan to twist in the wind

This is serious stuff, and spinning it doesn't help. Cheney shot a man and clammed up about it, and if the guys dies he could face a charge of criminally negligent homicide. To his credit, he finally said today "it's not Harry's fault. You can't blame anybody else," Cheney said. "Ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend.", but both the shooting and the delay indicate poor judgement.

[D.O.A.R.]

Originally Posted by jeff

The posts by Feltan and DOAR strike me as misdirected. The first is an attempt to draw attention away from the current VP having acted in a way that calls into question his competence and judgement. This isn't just a little thing - the VP shot a guy and then kept the news from coming out till later (did they think it would be minor lacerations and that they'd be able to keep it quiet?).

It was an accident. I’ve had someone discharge his weapon while it was pointing at my side, riding in the back of a deuce. Fortunately it was loaded with blanks. He said it was an accident, but then again, he was incompetent. I’ve also had a guy tell me he accidentally killed me during a battle drill because one of us was out of position. Accidents happen, be glad for the ones you can walk away from.

Now, how does this call into question the competence and judgment of the VP, with respects to his ability to perform as the VP? Should he go hunting? Maybe not, but then I haven’t heard that he was acting irresponsibly (e.g. letting out a Howard Dean Yeee-ah! while blindly firing off multiple rounds into the surrounding brush).

Originally Posted by jeff

That's a lot more newsworthy than Gore's remarks, which are not far out of sync with what the US military thinks: it did court-martial several people after all. Besides, as Slim points out so delicately, Gore aint newsworthy.

If what he said was true, I’m sure the military would agree with you.
As much as I normally agree with Slim, I disagree on this. I’d say that Gore’s remarks are at least as newsworthy as a Senator’s compliment paid to an old colleague at his birthday party.

Originally Posted by jeff

As far as the press not being 'spoon fed' - how the hell are they supposed to know about Cheney shooting somebody in a hunt held without press and on private property? No, they sat on it and hoped it would blow over, and left McClellan to twist in the wind.

Maybe we should imbed a few reporters during the next hunting trip.

[jeff]

Nah, I don't think Cheney gave a primal scream - I think his defibrillator kicked in and knocked him for a loop while his finger was on the trigger.... Maybe he did scream from that. Look: personal competence has always been used (fairly or not) as a proxy for professional competence. Look at Reagan (and GWB) chopping brush, or Jimmy Carter being attacked by a bunny rabbit... It comes with the territory. You wanna be Mr. Butch with the hunting gear, then don't pop your friends.

Press as imbeds with Cheney? Who would be more unhappy: the press afraid of getting shot, or Cheney pissed off for lack of privacy?

Oh, the Senator's birthday party? Nope, gotta disagree. That was expressing strong pro-segregationist sentiment, and that's simply reprehensible by anyone, let alone a sitting member of the government.

[D.O.A.R.]

Originally Posted by jeff

Oh, the Senator's birthday party? Nope, gotta disagree. That was expressing strong pro-segregationist sentiment, and that's simply reprehensible by anyone, let alone a sitting member of the government.

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Now you take his comments and interpet that to mean "I wish blacks and whites never had to mix, and dangit' Strom, If you had been president, we never would have been made to neither" or, take it in context. I think he was paying a compliment to an old man on his birthday by effectively saying " you're a good guy, and if you were in charge, things would have turned out great".

[bmcfencer]

You know, I saw this thread before I heard about the shooting from a reputable news source (um, another student had to tell me), and I thought it was joking.

I am a bit worried that I seem to be getting my news from fencing.net now.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by D.O.A.R.

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Now you take his comments and interpet that to mean "I wish blacks and whites never had to mix, and dangit' Strom, If you had been president, we never would have been made to neither" or, take it in context. I think he was paying a compliment to an old man on his birthday by effectively saying " you're a good guy, and if you were in charge, things would have turned out great".

Spin it how you like. Even Lott's own party turned from him in revulsion for "if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either" is a clue when talking about a person who ran for president on the single ssue of white supremacy. From http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI.../lott.comment/ describing Thurmond: "During the campaign, he said, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." Thurmond's party ran under a platform that declared in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

[D.O.A.R.]

Originally Posted by jeff

Spin it how you like. Even Lott's own party turned from him in revulsion for "if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either" is a clue when talking about a person who ran for president on the single ssue of white supremacy. From http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI.../lott.comment/ describing Thurmond: "During the campaign, he said, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." Thurmond's party ran under a platform that declared in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

I agree that Thurmand's views back in 1948 was terrible. I don't know him or much about him, but I imagine he must have changed his tune considering he served for almost half a century.
In any case, Trent Lott was 7 years old when Thurmond ran for president, so I'm not sure he was in any type position to have the rest of the country following his lead.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

Spin it how you like. Even Lott's own party turned from him in revulsion for "if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either" is a clue when talking about a person who ran for president on the single ssue of white supremacy. From http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI.../lott.comment/ describing Thurmond: "During the campaign, he said, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." Thurmond's party ran under a platform that declared in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Nah. The ONLY reason he was hit for these remarks were because of the hyper-sensitivity of the media to repubs and race issues. To do anything but condemn him would have been played up as racism. Lott's remarks were to make an old timer feel good on his birthday, nothing more. And he paid dearly for what I consider just simple remark.

If and when someone says a similar thing about Robert Byrd (former grand-wizard of the KKK), do you really think they'll face the same rath as Lott did? I seriously doubt it. Dems have carte blanche when it comes to anything race related.

I actually do agree more with DOAR regarding Gore's remarks than I may have indicated. I think he's as about as close to a traitor as John Walker Lindh. And I'm not surprised it was basically ignored. But Cheney's group screwed up royally. Even the president's camp is putting some distance between them. I think what happend is more out of ignorance of what to do than the callous secrecy that the press is making it out to be. I think his handlers just didnt know how to handle the VP shooting someone. It's not something that happens every day.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by D.O.A.R.

Maybe we should imbed a few reporters during the next hunting trip.

Like the entire WH press core. Let Helen Thomas take point.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Well, the main reason it is new is because it involved the Vice President of the United States making a supremely bonehead decision.

Then... the White House, in their typical, cover it up as much as possible continued to withhold info, which, of course, guarantees that every pencil jockey trying to make a scoop will be digging as deep as possible.

The owners of the ranch were lobbyists. Shooting a man on lobbyists' dollars isn't exactly a way to help your party turn down the cries of the Republicans' 'Culture of Corruption' that has pervaded news stories for the last few months with much more to come.

The alternatives are:
1) Violence in Iraq
2) Cartoon protestors burning down buildings ( I picture Bugs Bunny holding a torch)
3) Israelis and Palestinians squaring off.

It has done an effective job of drawing the headlines away from the scathing Republican committee report on the federal failures during Katrina though... hmmmmmmm...

Yes, this was all planned.

Why is EVERYTHING a Republican-Christian-Haliburton-NeoCon conspiracy with you?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Slim

Nah. The ONLY reason he was hit for these remarks were because of the hyper-sensitivity of the media to repubs and race issues. To do anything but condemn him would have been played up as racism. Lott's remarks were to make an old timer feel good on his birthday, nothing more. And he paid dearly for what I consider just simple remark.

If and when someone says a similar thing about Robert Byrd (former grand-wizard of the KKK), do you really think they'll face the same rath as Lott did? I seriously doubt it. Dems have carte blanche when it comes to anything race related.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. In an unguarded moment Lott showed where his heart is (and his sheet).

Originally Posted by Slim

I actually do agree more with DOAR regarding Gore's remarks than I may have indicated. I think he's as about as close to a traitor as John Walker Lindh. And I'm not surprised it was basically ignored. But Cheney's group screwed up royally. Even the president's camp is putting some distance between them. I think what happend is more out of ignorance of what to do than the callous secrecy that the press is making it out to be. I think his handlers just didnt know how to handle the VP shooting someone. It's not something that happens every day.

On the first I'll disagree again (and I'll point you back to letting the bin Laden family leave the US after 9/11 for something that smells a lot more).

On the second, yeah, it was an exercise in incompetence compounded by a habit of secretiveness. It's not an extremely subtle point. These guys aren't amateurs (we thought), and they're all supposed to know that in a crisis (1) tell 'em right away (2) tell it all (3) tell it yourself. But that's not good for people who never admit mistake and like to conduct all their business in private corners.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Well, the main reason it is new is because it involved the Vice President of the United States making a supremely bonehead decision.

Then... the White House, in their typical, cover it up as much as possible continued to withhold info, which, of course, guarantees that every pencil jockey trying to make a scoop will be digging as deep as possible.

I'll admit that this is a bit more serious than I thought, but it was an accident. Hunting accidents are pretty common, it's one of the hazards that come with carrying around weapons designed to kill things. I don't beleive that there was a coverup, or an ulterior motive, as that theory just doesn't hold together. I think that the white house is just generally incompetant at internally distributing information, and that this was no exception. Not that it's really important information, anyway.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Are there laws mandating loss of weapon licence for certain cases in Texas?

No. There aren't even any laws mandating licenses for weapons ( unless you are talking about fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc., which require a federal license and a special tax stamp ). No licensing, no registration. God bless Texas! And all the other states like it!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

No need to be insulting.

What, to the vermin?