http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4714264.stm
The Man Cheney Shot just had a minor heart attack due to some birdshot making it into his heart, it seems.
I didn’t want to hiijack one of the othe threads on this, but what crime could Cheney be charged with if he dies?
I wouldn’t expect him to actually be charged, but how common is it for hunting accidents to result in criminal charges if there is no malicious intent? And what are those people charged with?
Not a lawyer, but wouldn’t involuntary manslaughter fit the bill?
Are Republican in season? 
But yeah, involuntary manslaughter would apply.
Or negligent homicide.
This should make him a shoe-in for the Aaron Burr Award.
Unless I am mistaken, isn’t this the same thing? I think it just varies from one jurisdiction to the other as to what it’s called. I could be wrong, though. Either way, I don’t see him getting any charges levied against him, and it’s not so much because it’s a GOP controleld government, I just can’t see any federal politician going to trial over something like this.
He could concievably be charged with manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, or nothing at all. I’ve never known of anyone charged with homicide from a hunting accident, but it could happen.
Texas Penal Code.
Probably nothing.
If it’s been determined by prosecuting authorities that Cheney’s shooting Whittington was a non-criminal mistake, then it’s a non-criminal mistake no matter the degree of injury he suffers.
It’s like killing someone in a car accident. If you were at fault, that doesn’t mean you were criminally negligent or reckless, you could have been. But just because someone dies because of you does not mean it is a crime. The law accepts that accidents can happen even when people are acting in a fairly reasonable way.
And even if they are acting somewhat inappropriately, that would have to rise to negligence or recklessness to cause criminal sanctions.
according to the texas types on the abrams report, it does not seem there will be any charges. they stated that there was no drinking or horse play. those 2 factors may trigger charges.
the vp had neither alcohol or equines.
I watched the same report. That guy also said that in Texas, if there is no booze or horseplay, it ain’t hunting…
If Cheney hadn’t had any alcohol, why did the SS keep the local sheriff away until the next morning? I’d be surprised if anyone involved was willing to go under oath about the details.
Nice simulpost. We even linked to the same site.
Well, if ultimately no criminal charges come against Cheney, what about civil liablity? Whittington (or his family, should he die) could sue Cheney for damages, no?
They’d probably have to wait until Cheney left office, but I don’t see why they couldn’t sue. If a lawsuit developed, I would expect that Cheney would use the concept of "assumed risk"as his defense. IOW, everybody who goes hunting knows (or should know) that this sort of accident might happen.
First, props to pravnik for an actual GQ response.
Texas does not recognize assumption of the risk as that doctrine generally is understood by laymen (i.e., “he knew it could be dangerous, so why is he mad?”). Thus, assumption of the risk is not a defense. Instead, it appears to be, in Texas, shorthand for contributory negligence. If the accounts are accurate, and Whittington failed to announce his presence as is customary, then Cheney’s best defense is contributory negligence. I defer to my learned brother pravnik on this point, should he return to this thread.
I’m also curious as to the legal basis for your opinion that Whittington would have to wait until Cheney left office before suing. I’m unaware of any rule in Texas that precludes a lawsuit against a politician and am curious to see a citation to the contrary. Moreover, to the extent you are merely asserting that it would be prudent to delay filing suit, I would also be interested to know how the statute of limitation and the doctrine of laches apply to your theory.
IANAL but my layman’s understanding of this is that the Presidency does not shield the president from lawsuits. The case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald the SCOTUS held that a president was immune from lawsuits for actions he made in executing his office as president. However, in Clinton v. Jones the SCOTUS held that Clinton could be sued even though he was president as the act in question was not within the scope of his presidential duties.
I think since hunting quail is not within the scope of a VPs official duties Cheney could be sued by the Whittington.
I should note that in Clinton’s case the act in question occurred before he was president but nonetheless I think the case establishes that immunity from lawsuit only exists for official acts as president. They felt it would be unreasonable for a person wronged to have to wait till the president was out of office to bring suit.
Well, technically, it’s not illegal, since Cheney did it. See the memo.
My mistake then. I forgot that immunity was limited to official acts. I thought that the president (and presumably the vice-president) simply could not be sued while in office.
