Will Cheney get indicted for manslaughter....
-
Perhaps I've not understood this correctly but has Cheney actually done anything wrong? It was, from what I've read, an accident. Please enlighten me. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
It was, from what I've read, an accident. Please enlighten me.
If I have an accident in my car and I kill someone, or even just hospitalise them, then there is a very real change I would be charged with that. If the person dies I'd more than likely be imprisoned for killing the person even although it was an accident. If it could be proved that the accident was a fault of the vehicle, for example if the brakes failed, then I'd get off. I'd suggest as the injuries were sustained while the gun was functioning normally then the "accident" is the fault of the user.
- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. --Voltaire (1694-1778)
-
if this guy dies? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_whittington[^]
I have never known anyone to face such charges as a consequence of a fatal hunting accident. When you join a hunting party of your own free will, you assume the risks invovled. Civil lawsuits (as you might imagine) are far more common in such cases. Personally, I think the anticipation from the media and other lefty groups eagerly waiting for this guy to die is too funny. This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been. The fact that the left feels that it needs to exploit such a triviality (while Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country, btw) is a clear indication of just how clueless, desperate and intellectual bankrupt they trully are. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
I have never known anyone to face such charges as a consequence of a fatal hunting accident. When you join a hunting party of your own free will, you assume the risks invovled. Civil lawsuits (as you might imagine) are far more common in such cases. Personally, I think the anticipation from the media and other lefty groups eagerly waiting for this guy to die is too funny. This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been. The fact that the left feels that it needs to exploit such a triviality (while Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country, btw) is a clear indication of just how clueless, desperate and intellectual bankrupt they trully are. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been.
Riiiiiight. So that whole botched invasion of Iraq thing is proved wrong by a hunting accident. It's a bit of stretch.
-
I have never known anyone to face such charges as a consequence of a fatal hunting accident. When you join a hunting party of your own free will, you assume the risks invovled. Civil lawsuits (as you might imagine) are far more common in such cases. Personally, I think the anticipation from the media and other lefty groups eagerly waiting for this guy to die is too funny. This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been. The fact that the left feels that it needs to exploit such a triviality (while Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country, btw) is a clear indication of just how clueless, desperate and intellectual bankrupt they trully are. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
When you join a hunting party of your own free will, you assume the risks invovled.
Do we also assume the risks involved when you cross the street of your own free will? Or is the motorist held responsible? There are instances where guns go off accidentally (at home), somebody is injured, dies of a cause that somehow an be traced to the gunshot and the person holding the gun is held liable for the death. The charge might be negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc. If the guy shot by Cheney dies of a heart attack -- and medical doctors can attest that a "silent heart attack" has already been caused by the pellets -- some months later, will Cheney be held responsible? That is the question I am asking. If the situation is where I shot a person and the person escapes serious injury but the bullet travels up the blood vessels 2 years later and causes a massive heart attack killing him, you can bet that the local DA would be throwing the book at me. Will Cheney be held to the same standards of justice (or law)? You can be sure that I am waiting for the guy to die of a heart attack and to see the local DA's reaction. And weren't you guys making a big deal about a BJ a few years back?
-
I have never known anyone to face such charges as a consequence of a fatal hunting accident. When you join a hunting party of your own free will, you assume the risks invovled. Civil lawsuits (as you might imagine) are far more common in such cases. Personally, I think the anticipation from the media and other lefty groups eagerly waiting for this guy to die is too funny. This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been. The fact that the left feels that it needs to exploit such a triviality (while Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country, btw) is a clear indication of just how clueless, desperate and intellectual bankrupt they trully are. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been.
I see you are in troll mode. As a matter of logic, this incident proves nothing about anything except this incident.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that the left feels that it needs to exploit such a triviality (while Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country, btw) is a clear indication of just how clueless, desperate and intellectual bankrupt they trully are.
Get real. If Hilary Clinton, say, ran over someone in her car, do you think Republicans wouldn't be milking it? Republicans milk it if some Senators allegedly make a Judge's wife cry by asking her husband questions. There is nothing so trivial that Republicans won't attempt to beat it up for partisan advantage. When you shoot a man instead of a bird, you look like an idiot. Politicians who do things that make them look like idiots invariably get ridiculed. At least that is what happens on the planet that I live on; I don't know about the one where you live. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
John Carson wrote:
It depends on the degree of recklessness/negligence, if any, that led to the accident.
One would have thought that once turned around the time taken to aim at the target would also have been enough time to determine that the target was not avian.
- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. --Voltaire (1694-1778)
Andy *M* wrote:
One would have thought that once turned around the time taken to aim at the target would also have been enough time to determine that the target was not avian.
In the case of any competent shooter, I would have thought so. Just what view the law takes of these matters, however, I could not say. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been.
Riiiiiight. So that whole botched invasion of Iraq thing is proved wrong by a hunting accident. It's a bit of stretch.
Dan Bennett wrote:
So that whole botched invasion of Iraq thing is proved wrong by a hunting accident.
It isn't a matter of proof, but of perception. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been.
I see you are in troll mode. As a matter of logic, this incident proves nothing about anything except this incident.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that the left feels that it needs to exploit such a triviality (while Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country, btw) is a clear indication of just how clueless, desperate and intellectual bankrupt they trully are.
Get real. If Hilary Clinton, say, ran over someone in her car, do you think Republicans wouldn't be milking it? Republicans milk it if some Senators allegedly make a Judge's wife cry by asking her husband questions. There is nothing so trivial that Republicans won't attempt to beat it up for partisan advantage. When you shoot a man instead of a bird, you look like an idiot. Politicians who do things that make them look like idiots invariably get ridiculed. At least that is what happens on the planet that I live on; I don't know about the one where you live. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
do you think Republicans wouldn't be milking it?
Of course they would. But that isn't what is going on here. In fact, I have not heard a single democrat yet say a single word about the indicent - they are waiting for their media buddies to build as much momentum as possible before the commit politically. This has turned into a media feeding frenzy. If it had been Al Gore in such an incident, the media buzz would have been about how well prepared he had been to deal with the situation, and that hunting ancidents happen all the time. He would have been made to look like a macho hunter able to handle any crisis. Thats the difference here. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When you join a hunting party of your own free will, you assume the risks invovled.
Do we also assume the risks involved when you cross the street of your own free will? Or is the motorist held responsible? There are instances where guns go off accidentally (at home), somebody is injured, dies of a cause that somehow an be traced to the gunshot and the person holding the gun is held liable for the death. The charge might be negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc. If the guy shot by Cheney dies of a heart attack -- and medical doctors can attest that a "silent heart attack" has already been caused by the pellets -- some months later, will Cheney be held responsible? That is the question I am asking. If the situation is where I shot a person and the person escapes serious injury but the bullet travels up the blood vessels 2 years later and causes a massive heart attack killing him, you can bet that the local DA would be throwing the book at me. Will Cheney be held to the same standards of justice (or law)? You can be sure that I am waiting for the guy to die of a heart attack and to see the local DA's reaction. And weren't you guys making a big deal about a BJ a few years back?
Vivic wrote:
Do we also assume the risks involved when you cross the street of your own free will? Or is the motorist held responsible?
Depends on who had the right of way to some extent. If I purposefully step in front of your car while jay walking the charges will be much different than if you plow through a red light while I'm crossing legally. There is no legal concept of 'right of way' in an open field. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
John Carson wrote:
do you think Republicans wouldn't be milking it?
Of course they would. But that isn't what is going on here. In fact, I have not heard a single democrat yet say a single word about the indicent - they are waiting for their media buddies to build as much momentum as possible before the commit politically. This has turned into a media feeding frenzy. If it had been Al Gore in such an incident, the media buzz would have been about how well prepared he had been to deal with the situation, and that hunting ancidents happen all the time. He would have been made to look like a macho hunter able to handle any crisis. Thats the difference here. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
If it had been Al Gore in such an incident, the media buzz would have been about how well prepared he had been to deal with the situation, and that hunting ancidents happen all the time. He would have been made to look like a macho hunter able to handle any crisis.
I think I detect not flying quails but flying pigs. When Kerry went hunting in the leadup to the 2004 election, he was mocked. And he didn't shoot anyone. The feeding frenzy that would have followed if he had shot anyone would make the current ruckus look like a quiet Sunday afternoon. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If it had been Al Gore in such an incident, the media buzz would have been about how well prepared he had been to deal with the situation, and that hunting ancidents happen all the time. He would have been made to look like a macho hunter able to handle any crisis.
I think I detect not flying quails but flying pigs. When Kerry went hunting in the leadup to the 2004 election, he was mocked. And he didn't shoot anyone. The feeding frenzy that would have followed if he had shot anyone would make the current ruckus look like a quiet Sunday afternoon. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
When Kerry went hunting in the leadup to the 2004 election, he was mocked. And he didn't shoot anyone. The feeding frenzy that would have followed if he had shot anyone would make the current ruckus look like a quiet Sunday afternoon.
Thanks for proving my point. The media gave Kerry exactly what he wanted - while obviously fakeing a duck hunt. No question were asked until it could no longer be avoided. Kerry could not possible have shot anyone, since he didn't shoot at all. It was clearly a lie which the main stream media did everything possible to cover up for him. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
John Carson wrote:
It depends on the degree of recklessness/negligence, if any, that led to the accident.
One would have thought that once turned around the time taken to aim at the target would also have been enough time to determine that the target was not avian.
- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. --Voltaire (1694-1778)
Bird hunting is one of the most dangerous forms of hunting because of the speed required to bring down the target. It is very easy to concentrate so much on the target that you ignore what is in the foreground as the birds frequently fly at about head level. Even well trained police officers shooting at an escaping felon frequently experience the same issue. My dad nearly shot my older brother on a bird hunt once, and afterwards never let any of us kids bird hunt again. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
John Carson wrote:
When Kerry went hunting in the leadup to the 2004 election, he was mocked. And he didn't shoot anyone. The feeding frenzy that would have followed if he had shot anyone would make the current ruckus look like a quiet Sunday afternoon.
Thanks for proving my point. The media gave Kerry exactly what he wanted - while obviously fakeing a duck hunt. No question were asked until it could no longer be avoided. Kerry could not possible have shot anyone, since he didn't shoot at all. It was clearly a lie which the main stream media did everything possible to cover up for him. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
The media gave Kerry exactly what he wanted - while obviously fakeing a duck hunt. No question were asked until it could no longer be avoided. Kerry could not possible have shot anyone, since he didn't shoot at all. It was clearly a lie which the main stream media did everything possible to cover up for him.
The hunt was ridiculed from day one and your claim that "he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. The hunt was undoubtedly a publicity stunt and was treated as such by the media. No special favours were given to Kerry. Of course if you work from the premise that the Democrats are always wrong and the Republicans always right, then I guess the media will seem to you to have a pro-Democrat bias. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire incident provides undeniable proof of how baseless virtually every charge leveled against this administration has been.
I see you are in troll mode. As a matter of logic, this incident proves nothing about anything except this incident.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that the left feels that it needs to exploit such a triviality (while Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia committing treason against his own country, btw) is a clear indication of just how clueless, desperate and intellectual bankrupt they trully are.
Get real. If Hilary Clinton, say, ran over someone in her car, do you think Republicans wouldn't be milking it? Republicans milk it if some Senators allegedly make a Judge's wife cry by asking her husband questions. There is nothing so trivial that Republicans won't attempt to beat it up for partisan advantage. When you shoot a man instead of a bird, you look like an idiot. Politicians who do things that make them look like idiots invariably get ridiculed. At least that is what happens on the planet that I live on; I don't know about the one where you live. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
I see you are in troll mode
I disagree, looks pretty much like standard mode to me :)
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The media gave Kerry exactly what he wanted - while obviously fakeing a duck hunt. No question were asked until it could no longer be avoided. Kerry could not possible have shot anyone, since he didn't shoot at all. It was clearly a lie which the main stream media did everything possible to cover up for him.
The hunt was ridiculed from day one and your claim that "he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. The hunt was undoubtedly a publicity stunt and was treated as such by the media. No special favours were given to Kerry. Of course if you work from the premise that the Democrats are always wrong and the Republicans always right, then I guess the media will seem to you to have a pro-Democrat bias. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
The media doesn't have a 'pro-democrat' bias - it is a wing of the democratic party. And, btw, he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. If he had been a republican we would know. No stone would have been left unturned concerning the incident. The mere fact that this isn't known, is precisely the point - it was covered up by the media. That is all the proof I need to know the truth of the matter. Kerry walked into the woods, picked up a couple of dead ducks, and walked out. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 7:52 Wednesday 15th February, 2006
-
The media doesn't have a 'pro-democrat' bias - it is a wing of the democratic party. And, btw, he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. If he had been a republican we would know. No stone would have been left unturned concerning the incident. The mere fact that this isn't known, is precisely the point - it was covered up by the media. That is all the proof I need to know the truth of the matter. Kerry walked into the woods, picked up a couple of dead ducks, and walked out. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 7:52 Wednesday 15th February, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, btw, he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. If he had been a republican we would know. No stone would have been left unturned concerning the incident. The mere fact that this isn't known, is precisely the point - it was covered up by the media. That is all the proof I need to know the truth of the matter. Kerry walked into the woods, picked up a couple of dead ducks, and walked out.
I think this clearly reveals where the bias lies. You make an unsupported allegation and then the fact that there is no evidence to support it is proof of a cover up!!:laugh::laugh: John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
if this guy dies? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_whittington[^]
No. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, btw, he didn't shoot at all" and that it was "clearly a lie" is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware --- and any that you have supplied. If he had been a republican we would know. No stone would have been left unturned concerning the incident. The mere fact that this isn't known, is precisely the point - it was covered up by the media. That is all the proof I need to know the truth of the matter. Kerry walked into the woods, picked up a couple of dead ducks, and walked out.
I think this clearly reveals where the bias lies. You make an unsupported allegation and then the fact that there is no evidence to support it is proof of a cover up!!:laugh::laugh: John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
You make an unsupported allegation and then the fact that there is no evidence to support it is proof of a cover up!!
What the hell are you talking about? Your previous post clearly indicates that there is information we don't have. I'm saying the lack of such information is proof of the media's bias. And obviously so. If we don't know - why not? I mean, this is important stuff - did Kerry shoot the bird or not? I demand to know! Why won't the press get to the bottom of it? This guy has a good take... http://www.newswithviews.com/fredinburg/fredinburg11.htm[^] "You get that which you tolerate"
-
digital man wrote:
It was, from what I've read, an accident. Please enlighten me.
If I have an accident in my car and I kill someone, or even just hospitalise them, then there is a very real change I would be charged with that. If the person dies I'd more than likely be imprisoned for killing the person even although it was an accident. If it could be proved that the accident was a fault of the vehicle, for example if the brakes failed, then I'd get off. I'd suggest as the injuries were sustained while the gun was functioning normally then the "accident" is the fault of the user.
- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. --Voltaire (1694-1778)
That's not true at all (at least in America). Unless you were drinking, doing something intentional or breaking the law (as in hit and run), you're not going to face manslaughter charges. However, if you're a Kennedy, you're free to drink, drive and drown a young lady, get away with it and then become a senator and darling of the Democratic Party.
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
So that whole botched invasion of Iraq thing is proved wrong by a hunting accident.
It isn't a matter of proof, but of perception. "You get that which you tolerate"
:confused: Not quite sure what you mean by that. But the invasion of Iraq was botched by any reasonable standards. It didn't even meet the aims of the Bush administration.