That is a good point. Perhaps the windows were down on the vehicle she was in? Perhaps the car was close to the hunt? These are key questions. If I were attempting to join some guys who were moving towards a covey, I’d be yelling at the top of my lungs to get their attention.
Indeed. If that is the case she is very irresponsible for allowing a group of guys who, according to reports, had never hunted together to be on her property without appropriate supervision.
That deserves a raise in allowance.
For fuck’s sake. Can we please stop using this word? Remarking on the VP shooting someone doesn’t make it “politicized.” He shot someone. He’s famous for canned hunts. I imagine we’d be having this discussion no matter what famous person did it, or what they happened to be famous for. It isn’t about politics, it’s about a prominent person who did something monumentally stupid. Unless by “let’s not politicize,” you mean “let’s not discuss it.”
When Cheney goes bowling, I bet he uses the lanes with the bumpers in the gutters … .
Discuss! Discuss! Let’s just not try to link one old rich guy with heart trouble with a penchant for going to game ranches accidentally peppering another old rich guy who looks like he did something stupid with the moral problems of the executive branch of the federal government.
There are just so many reasons to be against Bush and Cheney on their job performance. It’s just so fucking trivial to go after them for what they do off the clock. That’s what I mean by politicizing.
I am assuming the windows were down. If she were close enough to Whittington be able to state affirmatively that he said nothing to announce himself to Cheney’s group, even though he had his back to her, then she was certainly close enough to Cheney to have been “yelling at the top of [her] lungs to get their attention.” In either case, her credibility comes into question. As she is the only source for the assertion, I see no reason to take her at her word and believe it.
I agree that it’s highly unlikely that anything sinister is going on and chances are the incident occurred exactly as has been reported. Whittington walked up incautiously on the shoot, Cheney was careless when he fired and whoever was supervising the shoot should have been more on the ball.
“Callous and evasive” are exactly the right words for how they’ve handled it publicly and I think it was unnecessary for them to either of those things. It wasn’t really that big of a deal- an accident that fortunately wasn’t serious. It has its comic element but it was going to have that regardless. I don’t see what advantage there was in initially hiding the story. Maybe they were worried that Whittington might have been more seriously injured.
In any case, the least they could do is refrain from any hint of victim blaming. If they had just been apologetic and graceful, promising to take care of Mr. Whittington’s medical, make him as comfortable as possible, etc. then it would have defanged a lot of the media reaction an mockery (though some joking is going to be unavoidable with something like this). The delay on releasing the news combined with the hint of victim-blaming makes them seem unecessarily shifty and mean-spirited. They didn’t do themselves any favors.
That’s certainly your prerogative. I doubt that we’ll ever know exactly what actually contributed to the accident. We also don’t know if she is reporting her own observations or is positing her understanding of events based on what Whittington, Cheney, and the other hunters in Cheney’s group have told her what they think happened.
Feel free.
Contrapuntal, all I can find about witnesses, the car’s proximity and why just one spokesperson are these (my bolding):
The Oxford Press
ABC News
Lame.
There’s a Dick Whittington pun/joke in here, dying to come out–British dopers, help me out!
several thoughts: ok, just one. Since I do not hunt and never will, I am trying to equate this to something that I can relate to.
If a kid runs into the street and I run him over in my car–I am at fault, despite the fact that the kid didn’t look etc. If I am backing out of my driveway and am blinded by the slant of sunlight and knock down a woman walking her dog–I am still at fault. (that actually happened to my sister, btw: the woman suffered a broken leg). If in a code, I call out “shock the pt” and the count is done, “I’m clear, you’re clear, all clear” and I still shock someone who didn’t get clear–I am at fault. The one who didn’t get “clear” bears some blame as well, but I hold the greater part.
My point is this: Dick was the man with his finger on the trigger. He (to my mind) bears the greater responsiblity for this “mishap” than his victim does–because in his position(not physical or actual position) he could do the greater damage. So, IMO, Whittington was stupid (or ignorant–how experienced is he at hunting?) but Cheyney bears the ulitmate responsiblity. If you hold in your hands the ablitiy to remove life or health from someone–you need to pay attention, at all times. No excuses.
And the blaming the victim thing is just tacky and shows how nasty this man really is. How ungracious can you get? How does he enjoy himself? kicking puppies?
I also think that what happens in things like this is that everyone runs around shitting themselves because of the “prestige” in doing business with a VIP–almost the ultimate VIP in this case–and very little in terms of safe behavior or personal responsibility is expected from these VIPs. No doubt Cheyney is an experienced hunter (of one kind or another)–but that just reinforces my point: he should know safe gun practices. He should damn well practice them. He so lives up to his first name, no?
I have another joke involving SCOTUS justices and hunting (as in I bet Cheyney wishes it had not Whittington or Libby, but Souter–and heavier shot etc) but it won’t coalesce.
Bwhaa… ah Dio, sometimes you really can make me laugh.
Here’s some more on the delay, specifically that Bush was informed Saturday. Make of it what you will.
Well, he probably would have been wise to turn, turn again…
No, you’re not. You might fault yourself personally, as I’m sure Cheney does if the Fox story linked in the OP is any indication, but legally, ethically and morally, you are not at fault.
This isn’t, or most certainly shouldn’t, be true. Safety rules apply to everyone. Your statement here also doesn’t jibe with your claim that Cheney is almost wholly responsible. If Cheney was the guy wholly reponsible, then whatever is happening, or rather not happening, is of little import.
And if you really wanna just make callous and stupid jokes, I recommend heading over Dailykos.com. There’s buckets of 'em over there. I’d hope that here, even in the Pit, people would a bit more objective and sensitive.
Actually, legally, she is at fault. The pedestrian always has the right of way. Period.
Depends on the jurisdiction and the situation.
Nope. No way. There are dozens of cases of kids getting hit by cars where the cops refuse to charge the motorist with anything - even a simply moving violation. I’d wager there are many more where the prosecutor declines to press the case.
I have read the whole thread and ::: shrug ::: Except for this. I disagree because it should be that way ---- but we as a people have been teaching and reaffirming with our court decisions and stupidly huge monetary settlements that personal responsibility is a thing of the past. We have done this and the youngsters are taking us at our word.
It is going to be ever so much worse in the future.
We have taught them that nothing is their responsibility. ( we are starting to believe it ourselves. )
Second general comment is that to ask for something that is not political to not be stupidly drawn in a political tirade on the SDMB is a really silly request. Bawahahahaha, that would kill 95% of all post on the board.