Not really. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. When you said this–
I took it to mean that such charges were a common occurrence (even though I was confused by the examples about driving accidents, as we were talking about children.) I was expecting statistical support rather than two examples, one of which clearly states that the criminal charges are a technicality, while the other provides scant information, including whether an adult was present, an item I stated in my question to you. Surely if “back then” kids were not charged as criminals, while “nowadays” they are, you would be able to point to the fat part of the bell curve, and not have to rely on outliers, no?
If kids get charged in accidental shootings these days, why in the world do you suppose Cheney, an adult, was not?
That was one of the other safety rules of hunting and gun handling - If you can’t see, it’s time to stop and call it a day. As for anyone trying to blame the victim (Whittington), including the White House, the press secretary or anyone else, that is nonsense. The responsibility always is with the shooter.
I wasn’t trying to minimize what happened in any way. According to some reports, the shooting distance was not 100 or 200 feet (as was claimed in some cites I read (but didn’t save the links to), but maybe closer to 30 feet. That is serious, even if using something tiny like number 8 or number 9 birdshot. It sure was not just a peppering or slight dusting at all. I think it was careless, reckless, irresponsible, and stupid. I hope (unlike alaric) that Whittington recovers. But, I have to side with Moto and Unclebeer… The jokes are out of place on BOTH sides of the aisle. Finally, if Cheney can not hunt safely anymore, he needs to give it up.
Hell, we all did, until yesterday: what Katharine Armstrong said, what the White House said, even the published comments of one of the doctors, all came down on the side of trivializing Whittington’s injuries.
I don’t think there’s any need for any of us to feel guilty about cracking jokes when we were told the damage was in the ‘minor abrasions and contusions, but basically fine’ range, rather than the ‘this guy’s been in the ICU for days, and will be in the hospital for a week or more’ range.
I half agree with you, and half disagree. I agree that Iran, Iraq, Katrina, the Medicare drug benefit, the NSA wiretapping (and other domestic spying programs), the Plame leak, and so forth, are fundamentally more important.
The question is, can we get the media to sell the public on that? I don’t think so.
But this story is one anybody can understand. People like stories with individual people in them, rather than masses of undifferentiated people.
And it’s got the elements of many of those other stories. Especially a veep who seems to be above and beyond accountability, both to the law and to the public - and to the President for that matter, seemingly confirming the suspicions of those who refer to the “Cheney Administration.”
Looks like he’s going to be on TV tonight, though. But the WaPo says it’s going to be on Fox News Channel, which I gather is their cable channel, rather than the broadcast channel which shows “The Simpsons” and so forth. I’m hoping it’ll be on radio too, since at 6pm, I’ll be on my homeward commute.
True. What’s disturbing is when they actively protect those under their care from things that aren’t threats to their person.
For example, keeping local law enforcement from interviewing Cheney on Saturday evening. That’s none of their freakin’ business. I’d expect them to confiscate guns and other weapons at the door, and remain with Cheney through the interview just in case the local sheriff turned out to be Zarqawi, cleverly disguised. But it was not their place to prevent the local law from doing their job.
Articles have refered to a “misunderstanding” as the reason law enforcement didn’t interview Cheney that night, presumably between them and the Secret Service. I’m not interested in speculating as to it’s nature but do hope that at some point the details of it will be made evident.
No, not entirely, but it’s important to understand that “recklessness” as it pertains to manslaughter has a specific definition in Texas law that may differ from what we usually refer to as reckless. In order for one’s behavior to be reckless, one has to actually perceive the great risk to human life and consciously disregard it – more specifically,
“aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.”
A few examples of behaviors upheld by Texas courts as sufficiently reckless:
driving 100 in a 50, shearing another car completely in half on impact at an intersection, hitting it so hard the car was still doing 70 after impact
spinning a pitol on one’s finger in a truck, which discharges, kills other occupant
shooting a shotgun through the front door of a home
driving illegally with obstructed vision
By contrast, criminally negligent homicide merely requires that the actor does not perceive the risk that an ordinary person would recognize. In layman’s terms you might say that criminal negligence is stupid behavior, and criminal recklessness is extremely f%@king stupid behavior. Manslaughter would be an appropriate charge if the VP, say, saw the bird three feet from Whittington’s head but decided he could make the shot anyway, but as it is it would be a hard sell for a prosecutor. Criminal negligence wouldn’t be an absolute lock, either; it’s a higher standard than what would constitute ordinary negligence.
This is another case of partisans hypocritically wanting to have things both ways depending on which spin is better at the moment. If people are talking about Cheney’s possible criminal culpability, the party line is that Whittington’s injuries are trivial and the whole affair was just a minor boo-boo. But if people start making jokes about Cheney, the party line is that it’s appallingly bad taste to make jokes when poor Harry Whittington is lying at death’s door.
It’s official. It was Cheney’s fault and his alone. At least according to him. No new word on who was in charge of the hunt, although Armstrong apparently is a past head of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. One would think that she would be up to date on hunt protocol.
P.S. Cheny calls it “one of the worst days of my life.” What do you figure the odds are that, on one of the worst days of his life, another guy not 30 yards away would be having an *even worse one? * Mind, meet boggle.
I’m sure there are a lot of situations that this analysis would apply to. And I’m sure the initial spin that Whittington’s injuries were trivial was exactly that - spin.
But when you’re talking about having things both ways, you’re talking about a convenient change in the spin. I’ve certainly seen that happen on other issues on other days, but I can’t see how it applies here. Unless you think the heart attack was bogus, ISTM that the seriousness of Whittington’s condition is no spin. And I haven’t been aware of anyone lecturing, say, Jon Stewart after the fact, saying he shouldn’t have been cracking jokes about Cheney on Monday night.
Boy, good thing he didn’t personally see any of those 30,000+ fall in the war he helped pull the trigger on, huh? That’s a lot of images in his mind he’d have to deal with.
Well, it may have been one of the worst days of his life, but at least he and his friends went back and got a decent dinner while they awaited news from the hospital. :rolleyes:
If I’d just shot someone like that, I’d be feeling too sick to eat.