<p>^ur a republican right?</p>
<p>It was but they say “no alcohol” was involved, well, yes there was, shooting while drinking, is like, you know REALLY WRONG</p>
<p>Too bad he refused top talk to the police like the rest of would have had to</p>
<p>Sure, it was an accident, but if your son had shot his friend, I would have thunk that he would have had to talk to law enforcement right away, but guess if you are “hunting” anything goes</p>
<p>CGM, your posts are really striking me as wildly off base lately. Granted, you and I are probably as far apart ideologically and politically as two people can be, but I do enjoy - and am very open to - reading posts representing opposing points of view, especially if they are well written, articulated with reason, well supported by documented facts from credible sources, and on message. </p>
<p>For example, you can come on here and post “very bad news, the Pope has purple bananas for ears”, and as long as the post is at least articulate, offers evidence as to why a purple banana-earred pope is a bad thing, and hopefully even a link from a credible source with a photograph of the bad purple banana-earred pope, I might just be moved a little bit down the road toward being convinced that we need to take some protective action against purple banana earred popes. I almost certainly won’t swallow it wholesale on the first read, but I’ll certainly think about it, and maybe I’ll even ask my friends in real life their opinions about purple banana-earred popes, and some of them might even agree with you, and in the process, move me even further down the road towards your point of view. </p>
<p>But your posts haven’t come across that way at all lately. Actually, they’re very frustrating to read; striking me as wildly emotional and even hysterical. You don’t even bother with complete sentences or accurate spelling or even basic punctuation. When I read your posts, I think, man oh man, I don’t EVER want to be associated with such points of view. </p>
<p>If you really, truly want to convert people towards your range of opinion, why not try a different, more balanced approach? Try for a little less hostility perhaps. Or if you cannot manage that, at least try for complete sentences with some punctuation.</p>
<p>"Cheney said he drank a beer with lunch the day of the shooting, according to his interview. The shooting took place about 5:50 p.m.</p>
<p>Armstrong had previously told CNN that she never saw Cheney or Whittington “drink at all on the day of the shooting until after the accident occurred, when the vice president fixed himself a cocktail back at the house.” CNN (Armstrong said she was with them all day)</p>
<p>So what is it: were they drinking or not? </p>
<p>And who cares how I write, after all, I am slammed for even writing some things. All some posters do is comment on my style, not on the content. For instance, I state some FACTS about the events, and suddenly, my style of writing on a chat room is disparaged. </p>
<p>When you attack a writer like that, it is a way of not discussing the issues. Fine, if that is what you need to do, fine, attack me, my stlye, my verbage, my frustration, but do not address any of the issues.</p>
<p>latetoschool, I agree with you on certain points. For instance, the lack of the hunting stamp is a total non-issue. It was a new requirement for licensure, and Cheney’d delegated that responsibility anyway. End of that story for me.</p>
<p>And at first, I thought this was just a normal hunting accident, too. Heck, I’ve got shot in me, too, from a rabbit hunting accident. I waited for the Leno/Letterman takes on it, but wasn’t thinking in terms of this being hard news.</p>
<p>But there are several very troubling aspects that have developed since. First, Armstrong said she spoke because she was a witness, and explained that Whittington got “peppered”, and said he wasn’t all that injured. In fact, she said, “his pride was hurt more than anything else”. But she also (by her own words) said that the first she knew of the incident was the secret service running toward the vice president. She said at first she thought Cheney had a heart attack. So she was there, and a witness to the aftermath, but she clearly did not witness the incident at all. Then the White House also downplayed Whittington’s injuries; but at the same time, said the reason that Cheney didn’t report this himself is that he was completely preoccupied with Whittington’s health and worried about the outcome. Well, was he injured badly, or just peppered with a few bb’s that welted his face? It doesn’t jive. </p>
<p>And as far as not having a PR person with him, you’re right. But he’s the VP, for pete’s sake - all he had to do was pick up a secure phone and call anyone person on his staff. I’m sure they wouldn’t have said, “Gee, Mr. VP, I’m watching the Olympics, so I’ll get back to you tomorrow”. </p>
<p>The problem is the facts just keep changing. And anytime the facts start to “evolve”, it raises questions about why, and what more evolution should people expect. This whole thing could have been stopped if he’d just come out first thing Sunday morning (even after the morning shows) with a full and complete statement. That would have the end of it. </p>
<p>One last point, yes, I travel on business as well. While I’m certainly not drop dead gorgeous (congrats, I guess . . ) I never let that bother me. But I don’t remember spending the weekend with a married man. I have to admit I’m not interested in his private life, but that’s not normal.</p>
<p>If hunting and drinking don’t go together there are a lot of guys in the woods of Minn., Wis, MI etc. that would be surprised. Not endorsing it myself but it is common and pretty much a tradition.</p>
<p>Read the Texas rules regarding safety and hunting and drinking. If you drink and drive you go to jail, hopefully, you drink and are carrying around a shotgun, its a-okay.</p>
<p>Cheney, said yes, he had a beer, while the woman running the camp, said no one drank all day until after the accident, when Cheney made himself a cocktail. The Ambassador said that there was beer in the car.</p>
<p>All facts. All we know, so far. They didn’t tell us the other hunters name until today. The beer story changed. The timing was odd. The President himself wasn’t even informed about Cheney being the shooter in, what most would consider, a timely fashion.</p>
<p>CGM, I am not “attacking” - if I were, you’d know it. I’m merely trying to express that if your intention is to try to convert - or at least introduce - others to your point of view, you’re not packaging your message in a way that is appealing to at least one member of the audience you address.</p>
<p>For example, do you not see the very clear difference in style and tone between your posts, and, say, #25? Because #25 I can actually get my head around. </p>
<p>As to the “issues” - there is no issue here - it was a HUNTING ACCIDENT.</p>
<p>Hayden, I don’t like the witness either, and I think her statements are weird, but she sort of strikes me as an “attention seeker” - not necessarily a person trying to cover up, and in any case, that doesn’t change the outcome much, or the correctness of the decision. </p>
<p>Weekends with married men? I actually have done that a few times; don’t like it much because I don’t like work creeping into my weekends. But it happens, depending on where in the world one is traveling, project deadlines, flight schedules, etc. </p>
<p>In UAE, for example, Sunday is a regular workday - Friday is their Sunday where everything is closed etc.</p>
<p>The cliche “Ready - Fire! - Aim” naturally comes to mind. Does this remind us in literally metaphorical fashion (awkward, I know) of US foreign policy since Darth Cheney took office?</p>
<p>(Taking a quick potshot and running, like a yellow-bellied dog, before the buckshot reaches my heart).</p>
<p>I brought up the woman being there because her name was omitted by the WHite House until others found it. Why not just say," and the Ambassador was there as the fourth gunman", and as she is a public figure, on my payroll, she has no expectations of privacy in this matter.</p>
<p>MAYBE it was a very innocent hunting accident…but with the way the White House and the VPs office have handled it, questions are getting asked, as they should be. If this was Kerry, you would be all over it. Dean goes WOOHOO, and its a sign of something. Yet, the stories of the Cheney incident are consistent with the various witnesses, and we are to go, “yep, you are free to go and we believe you all”. Why did Cheney not meet with law enforcement who asked to see him? Was his dinner that important? If he was so concerned with the meidcal care the victim was getting and that is why he didn’t speak to ANYONE, why was he not at the hospital, but instead having a nice dinner and a drink? is this the behavour we expect of our VP?</p>
<p>There are unanswered questions, especially regarding alcohol. We will never know if the Vice President drank more than that one beer he claims. </p>
<p>I find it interesting that Mrs. Armstrong, who is the hostess of this little weekend said no one drank anything all day, yet Cheney says he had beer at lunch. Did the hostess, who had lunch with them all, the one who runs this little shooting gallery, not realize there was beer at her table or beer in the car she was in?</p>
<p>Guess I am more curious than others.</p>
<p>The whole bloody thing really is an all too accurate metaphor for the administration’s record as a whole: incompetence & potentially lethal action on the basis of flawed intelligence, blaming the victim, trying to sit on the news, being a law unto themselves, etc.</p>
<p>As Hayden points out, Armstrong wasn’t even the witness she was first purported to be.</p>
<p>latetoschool - you’re right about working weekends. That I have (reluctantly but all too frequently) done. But was this work? If so, he owes us a complete and thorough accounting. But I was under the impression he was saying that he was enjoying a weekend with friends, not a business trip. </p>
<p>And as for UAE, I think we are aware that weekends fall on different days in Islamic countries. But last I checked, Texas wasn’t one of them!</p>
<p>Can we get back to the OP (ME) original question.</p>
<p>CGM, if this were Kerry, it would still be a HUNTING ACCIDENT, and most likely I wouldn’t even notice, because it simply isn’t an issue. And, I cannot imagine that the Vice President would hang out in the hospital waiting room - it would cause a security nightmare for the facility, and possibly pose risks for other patients and visitors, as well as create a burden and distraction for staff. And if it were me, I’d make an appointment to see the police the next day too. I certainly wouldn’t want to be making statements to law enforcement, even related to a freak accident, before having the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, and the chance to evaluate all the potential considerations. And I certainly wouldn’t be running my mouth at anyone else either. That’s just common sense. </p>
<p>Hayden - California isn’t in an Islamic country either, but three weeks ago I spent a long weekend in San Diego in the company of a very, very married man. We couldn’t get the flights we wanted to Miami so we stayed over a few days. Our hotel rooms were right next to each other and we were right on the water. And nothing improper happened. His wife is a friend of mine. </p>
<p>I simply do not see the issue with the presence of single women, even on a weekend hunting trip. There is such a thing as professional mentor relationships, and often much business gets done in such environments.</p>
<p>itstoomuch, sorry, I sort of was trying to get back to it. I’m no lawyer, but I can guess that the consequences could be extraordinary. My guess would be that perhaps that’s part of the reason why the three day delay to public statement - it might actually take that long to research all the law on the books, assess all the potential liability on something like this. </p>
<p>Only a fool would rush out there babbling in the public domain before the lawyers cleared it, and Cheney is no fool.</p>
<p>one hunter shooting another hunter does not deserve to be on national news.</p>
<p>This girlfriend (17) just shot her boyfriend (21) while hunting… why not talk about them?
<a href=“http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=6219[/url]”>http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=6219</a></p>
<p>It doesn’t sound like there will be any charges pressed, regardless of what the eventual outcome of this is.</p>
<p>ten characters</p>
<p>itstoomuch - sorry, I thought some of the earlier posts dealt with your question. My understanding is that the identity of the actors does not determine whether the case is federal or state. It is the facts of the case that determine jurisdiction. In other words, if the act involved multiple states (e.g., mailing a fraudulent solicitation, using a phone from one state to arrange a murder-for-hire in another state) then the act may be subject to federal laws. But if the actor is from one state and the victim (if I can use that word) from another, the jurisdiction of the state in which the act occurred typically still applies so long as the act itself did not involve multiple states. There are many exceptions. For instance, if a plane takes off in one state and the occupants are from that state and they are destined for a second state; but the plane goes down in a third state, there will be questions raised re: jurisdiction. This is only my understanding, however, and any attorneys may weigh in.</p>
<p>Typically, so far as I know, reckless endangerment, or manslaughter, or most of the other potential allegations to which a hunting accident might give rise, are state-only cases. I don’t know how the law would deal with a federal official acting in course and scope qua official. I have no experience with that at all.</p>
<p>Now your question appeared to address the criminal concerns. The civil claim is far more likely. Simple negligence and a failure to comply with a duty of care would be the most likely allegations. This also would be Texas law, not federal. If Cheney were not Cheney, this would almost be a given. But Cheney is Cheney, and his friend may decide not to sue for negligence.</p>
<p>soccerguy: Make your “statement” in your school’s paper and see the results.
I’d wager the #1 answer is: “because he is 2nd in line to be President.”</p>
<p>Hayden: Your para#3; But would the heirs and/or dependents of shootee have civil standing?</p>