Cheney goes on a rampage!!
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Friday, May 14, 2021 03:27
VIEWED: 21041
PAGE 7 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The victim does not decide whether a law was broken or not.
But only in civil cases in which money is to be awarded.
Are you sure you're a Prosecutor?
Lets take this one at a time.
Am I a Prosecutor? (Looks at little gold badge..) I hope so, otherwise I'm going to be in real trouble for sending that guy to jail yesterday for his OMVI (in Ohio we simplified DUI by changing it to OMVI which is Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence).
The other two points are a single issue. Lets take an example from this week. Lady comes in for a Citizen Complaint. Her mentally disabled son was abused at his school by a teacher's aid. No witnesses except the boy, who isn't competent to testify, the TA and the school's Principal. They claim the boy assaulted the TA. The boy had extensive bruises which came either as the result of abuse or from them restraining him (lawfully) until police arrived. To charge or not to charge. Since I could not be certain what did or did not happen (either they assaulted the boy and are lying or they were defending themselves and telling the truth) I could not in good faith charge them with a crime. The boy on the other hand has a history of violent behaivor. I decided to charge the boy with assault to put him in the JV system. In another example a woman is badly beaten by her husband and he is charged with Domestic Violence. At the Pre Trial they come in together and she says she wants the charges dropped. I refuse, she says she was lying. In such an instance I will drop the charges and charge the woman with making a false statement (either she did originally lie, unlikely, or she's lying now).
You say the victim does not decide whether or not a law was broken. Neither do I. The truth of whether or not a law was broken is not relevant to the issue. Thats for the Jury (or the Judge for a bench trial) to decide.
My consideration is my good faith belief that I can prove a violation of the law beyond reasonable doubt. For that I need witnesses and/or evidence. In this case we have witnesses all agreeing its an accident and experts (including myself as a hunter and a person whose been near missed by buckshot while sitting on my own back porch near a state game lands, back when I lived in PA as a kid that is) who agree it was an accident. No evidence or witnesses as yet to the contrary. The victim even agrees it was an accident and takes some small measure of responsibility. There is no grounds for a criminal case, not because a law may or may not have been brokem, but because if one might have been broken, there is simply no way to prove it.
I also note for the record the police report posted on Smoking Gun indicates that the victim was interviewed and his story is the same as the Vice Presidents. So while he may not have rushed to a microphone to give a press conferance, both parties did give statements to the only people who really deserve one, the police.
I also note for the record that while there is no viable criminal case at this time, the victim has a hell of a civil case against Cheney and the property owner...civil standards of proof are much lower.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I noticed that Hero and his doppleganger Cartoon ignore my common-sense posts. Must be because they can't think of anything to say. I suppose in a way I should be flattered, so "thank you" for that indirect compliment.
Actually I found your post to be quite worthy of a thoughtful response...except for the quip about my Prosecutorial credentials. Actually given my bad spelling skills, sometimes I wonder myself. Rest assured I spell check everything that gets filed in court.
I have since responded and I hope you are satisfied (with the thoughtful and extensive nature of the response, if not the content and sentiments expressed therin).
I would also note that my conservative values serve me well in this job. I'd think that you'd want someone like me as a Prosecutor. Tough on crime,strict application of the law, honost, forthright, mean, etc. You want hard chargers in my job and liberal pansies...er...sympathetic defenders on the other side. Makes for a good balance and all. Put a liberal in my office and folk can get away with murder (not to mention speeding). And I can carry a gun if I want. I'd do that anyway, at least this way my Constitutional predisposition is channeled into a productive service for the community. And to think, I turned down real money to do this job, more then once.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As much enjoyment as I'm getting out of this story (and seriously, as long as the victim doesn't die, you just can't buy or make up a funny news story like this!), I think it'd be nice if we could stick to a few facts.
From all the sources I've seen, this looks like it was in all likelihood an accident. A stupid, possibly alcohol-fueled, careless accident, sure, but an accident nonetheless. While I'm no supporter of Bush, Cheney, or their Administration, I'm willing to accept it as an accidental shooting. Still, that doesn't keep me from appreciating the irony of the situation, or from wanting Cheney to have to face the music.
As far as I've heard, the gun in question was a 20-gauge (or possibly 12-gauge) shotgun. Since they were hunting quail, it's most likely that they were using BIRDSHOT, not buckshot. Birdshot pellets are SMALL - not much larger than a grain of salt.
According to reports, Wittington was about 30 yards away when he was shot (or "peppered", as the White House referred to it. Odd choice of words; implies you're seasoning the guy...). Shotgun rounds *spread* as they cover distance, so I see no ballistics or logical problems with the idea that a man shot at 30 yards with birdshot would be hit in the face, head, neck, and chest with "the same bullet". Mainly because it's NOT the same bullet; it's the same ROUND, which contains around 200 individual "bullets" (which should really be called pellets to be accurate).
Quote:
ewww you people are not only sick but gross, sitting up defending Cheney's actions. but I know this is the type of thing you Reps support, you say it was an accident but how do you figure you wasn't there and even by some slim, slim, chance that it was, Cheney didn't report it, Why? because he was drunk, that doesn't seem like an accident.
grow a pair of balls and stop supporting and defending these crimnals, because ignorance is no longer acceptable and you can't aford to be innocent. The very fact that you make excuses is a reflection on you, I can understand Cheney trying to cover his arse, but whats in it for you!!
Nice line of reasoning there. What's in it for me, defending Cheney? Not a thing... unless I accidentally shoot someone some day, and would like to have or expect to have at least a *modicum* of a fair trial. I'm sure I'll get labelled a "Rep" by you for this reply, but that would only show how little you know about me. I've never voted for a Republican, and I never voted for Clinton.
Back to the facts as we know them. Apparently, Cheney lacked the proper stamp on his hunting license at the time of the shooting. That's not good. The Texas Parks & Wildlife enforcers say they'll be issuing him a warning citation. To me, that's a bit of a cop-out, a wrist-slap for a serious offense. If it was you or me, it would be called "poaching" (hunting without a valid license), and if we shot someone while poaching, I think we'd be in line for stiffer consequences than a mere warning.
I have no doubt we live under a corrupt system. I have no doubt that there ARE cover-ups and conspiracies. At the same time, though, I have a hard time believing that EVERYTHING is a cover-up and a conspiracy. Sometimes an accidental shooting is just that. Mind you, I think there should be more investigation into the incident, and stiffer penalties if it turns out that Cheney was drunk, negligent, criminally indifferent (waiting to report the incident), reckless, and/or hunting without a license or the proper endorsement on said license. But let's at least go through a pro-forma investigation before having the man burned as a witch. ;)
Like Ted Kennedy before him, this will probably seriously curtail Cheney's political clout. As the late Hunter Thompson said about Kennedy, "The man would have been President if he'd only learned how to drive. Once he put that girl in the water, it was all over." I tend to liken Cheney's gaffe to Kennedy's; both were serious lacks of judgment, both were stupid and avoidable accidents, but neither were wantonly cruel premeditated acts of ve
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's take a look at the disabled boy. Where were the bruises? To his face? His arms? His buttocks? His neck? In other words, were they consistent with being restrained? Did the TA have any bruises or show any other injury consistent with being attacked? Were the boy's knuckles skinned, consistent with attacking the TA? Is this the first such complaint against the TA and/or the school- or the 20th?
Now lets look at Cheney's case. Cheney shot a man in the face. That's indisputable- hospital records and physical exam say so. They both say it's an accident, but was the accident Cheney's fault? As far as I can tell, the only way that this is NOT Cheney's fault is if his gun misfired, or he was stung by a bee, or he sneezed, or some other external factor caused him to shoot at something that he CLEARLY didn't see well.
And in light of your reasoned response, I w/draw my snide remark about your professional position!
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Help me out with the ballistics here. How much spread and penetration do you get at 30 yards with birdshot? Enough that potentially a full load hits a person-sized target? Enough to penetrate a vest, shirt, and about 3" of flesh to near the heart? That's the one thing I can't quite seem to get a bead on (so to speak)- the actual distance.
As far as I've heard, the gun in question was a 20-gauge (or possibly 12-gauge) shotgun. Since they were hunting quail, it's most likely that they were using BIRDSHOT, not buckshot. Birdshot pellets are SMALL - not much larger than a grain of salt.
According to reports, Wittington was about 30 yards away when he was shot (or "peppered", as the White House referred to it. Odd choice of words; implies you're seasoning the guy...). Shotgun rounds *spread* as they cover distance, so I see no ballistics or logical problems with the idea that a man shot at 30 yards with birdshot would be hit in the face, head, neck, and chest with "the same bullet".
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
TeeVee said that 70 hunters shoot and kill each other every year in Texas, usually when drunk.
Funny, Texas says 29 accidents with 4 fatalities in 2004 and 30 and 2 in 2005.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20050314c
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20060213c
the 2004 release states:"The primary reason for Texas hunting accidents remains swinging on game outside a safe zone of fire. This happens when a person points a firearm at another hunter while following a moving target, such as a flying game bird."
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I would also note that my conservative values serve me well in this job. I'd think that you'd want someone like me as a Prosecutor. Tough on crime,strict application of the law, honost, forthright, mean, etc. You want hard chargers in my job and liberal pansies...er...sympathetic defenders on the other side. Makes for a good balance and all. Put a liberal in my office and folk can get away with murder (not to mention speeding).
H
Hero: If no one else has said it, thanks. Thanks for the well-reasoned and well-considered argument, and thanks for doing what all too often is a thankless job.
And I agree completely with you about who *I'd* want as a prosecutor and a defense attorney. Being myself one of those "liberal pansies" - though not an attorney - I can affirm that I'm a sucker for that "reasonable doubt" bit. As such, I'd probably err on the side of caution were I to serve on a jury. Better to let 100 guilty men go free, than send one innocent man to jail, and all that pap.
But again, thanks all the same for doing the job.
As I posted above, Cheney might have done something STUPID (I'm an avid gun owner myself, and have to date never shot anyone), but I'm far from convinced that what he did was CRIMINALLY stupid. Guess we'll have to see how it plays out.
Mike
A baby seal walks into a club...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which is an excellent reason why Cheney should have known better. And an even better reason to be interviewed immediately afterwards- so the question of alcohol can be laid to rest.
"The primary reason for Texas hunting accidents remains swinging on game outside a safe zone of fire. This happens when a person points a firearm at another hunter while following a moving target, such as a flying game bird."
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Kwicko- since you seem to know something about guns- and in case my question got lost in the shuffle: How much spread and penetration do you get at 30 yards with birdshot? Enough to penetrate a shirt, vest, and about 3" of flesh?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
TeeVee said that 70 hunters shoot and kill each other every year in Texas, usually when drunk.
Funny, Texas says 29 accidents with 4 fatalities in 2004 and 30 and 2 in 2005.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20050314c
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20060213c
the 2004 release states:"The primary reason for Texas hunting accidents remains swinging on game outside a safe zone of fire. This happens when a person points a firearm at another hunter while following a moving target, such as a flying game bird."
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Thanks for that info.
For the record, I'm not a hunter. I shoot for fun and recreation, with rifles and handguns (and I'm aware of the irony of a "gun-toting liberal"). Having said that...
Quote:
Help me out with the ballistics here. How much spread and penetration do you get at 30 yards with birdshot? Enough that potentially a full load hits a person-sized target? Enough to penetrate a vest, shirt, and about 3" of flesh to near the heart? That's the one thing I can't quite seem to get a bead on (so to speak)- the actual distance.
I can't say for sure. How much spread you get is going to depend on the distance and the shotgun. From what I understand about shotguns, you can alter the "choke" to spread out more or to spread out less. I could be wrong about that, not being a shotgun guy myself... But suffice it to say that hitting a flying bird (and a quail is a rather SMALL bird at that) at 30 yards or so is not an easy proposition. You WANT the shot to spread a bit to increase your chances of actually hitting something.
As to penetration... well, let's just say it's enough to kill a bird at that distance. The orange hunting vests I've seen are more like a city worker's orange vest than a Kevlar vest. They're for visibility, not for staving off shotgun rounds. If the birdshot in question has enough velocity to down a bird and penetrate deeply into its body, I have no problem at all believing that it can go right through a Safety Orange hunting vest, a shirt, pants, and skin. Would it penetrate all the way to the heart? Don't know, but I'm a bit skeptical of that. Most likely scenario is what's been mentioned - that the piece of shot "migrated" to his heart via a blood vessel. As I said above, birdshot is quite small. A piece of it could easily get into a vein large enough to carry it to the heart without any danger of bleeding to death beforehand. We're talking something with a diameter of a millimeter or two, not a .50-caliber round. :)
Would a "full load" hit a person-sized target at 30 yards? I'd say probably not. But that's just a technicality on my part, meaning I don't think he actually got hit with every single shot pellet from the fired round. I'd think a large portion of that round could hit a man-sized target at that range, though, if it was well-aimed. ;)
Mike
A baby seal walks into a club...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME