Probably Deliberately, Hunter Steps In Front Of Cheney's Gun

Let's see, it could be a misdemeanor assault, aggravated assault, deadly conduct, and the victim still lives... Manslaughter if you recklessly cause the death of another...

It seems plausible that the neocons could persuade Cheney to step down over this, even if he's too rich and powerful to be held accountable for his reckless actions in Texas... And it also seems plausible they would hold him up as the posterboy for the rich and powerful not being above the law all the while breaking bigger laws themselves...

Obviously, you are not familiar with Texas Law.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113994203347473737-rd5ts1weysS6I6g3pW3xFKj_OrU_20070214.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

"In Texas, Carlos Valdez, the district attorney whose office would prosecute any suspected crimes, said that he has seen no indication of criminal wrongdoing. It would require recklessness or criminal negligence to file charges, and "I haven't heard anything like that in this, anything close to recklessness or criminal negligence," he said.

Prosecutors have latitude in such cases, legal experts said. In Mr. Valdez's office, "if all the witnesses agree that it was an accident...we let it go at that," absent evidence of recklessness or criminal negligence, the district attorney said. Mr. Valdez added that if Mr. Whittington were to die, it could trigger a grand jury investigation.

A state incident report said that "hunter's judgment" played a role in the shooting. The report says Mr. Cheney, who was carrying a 28-gauge shotgun, "swung on a bird and fired," but ended up "striking Whittington in the face, neck and chest." Most safety guidelines, including those published by the state of Texas, recommend that a hunter be aware of what is in front of and beyond the target before pulling the trigger. But witnesses also have pointed to Mr. Whittington's failure to announce his presence to the hunters."

Of course, you may get your wish that Mr. Wittington dies. Would that be a good thing?

what surprises me is that a v.p. -who at any moment has to be ready to assume the presidency - thinks it's a good idea to go hunting .
it would seem to me that a person in that position would have to exercise more caution than an ordinary citizen.
just imagine if the v.p. would have been killed or seriously injured in a hunting accident ?
(i know, i know, some of you are snickering ! )
seriously, should senior government officials not exercise better judgement and be more careful in their r&r exercises ? hbg

Good point hamburger especially in our present situation.

I'm not sure we can restrict that. Look, GW almost got "wacked" riding a bicycle.

woiyo : i'm not talking of 'restricting' , i'm talking about the judgement a person in a senior government position is expected to demonstrate .
surely, he can do all the hunting he wants to do as a 'private citizen' ; the way i see it, a senior government official is no longer an 'ordinary' private citizen . such a person has enourmous privileges , but imo these privileges also require such a person to asume the responsibilieties (and sacrifices) that go hand-in-hand with it . hbg

Experienced bike riders get in accidents as do experienced hunters.

So when you say BETTER JUDGEMENT, do you refer to the activities or being more careful in their activities.

I would agree with being more careful in their activities, if that is what you mean.

But accidents happen!

woiyo : i think i answered your question in my previous post - just above your entry .
the way i see it, a person in that position would 'exercise better judgement' by giving up hunting for the duration of term .
imo certain sacrificies are required of such person in exchange for other privileges gained.
but that's just my opinion and nothing more . hbg


ps. i'd compare it to parents with children; i think they can not pretend to be single - so some do. they have responsibilities that require them to make certain sacrifices if they want to be responsible parents.

Disagree, hamaburger. We might end up with a President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House being prohibited from all but the most necessary, well, air travel, as an example.

Not to say it wouldn't be darn reckless to put them all on the same flight.

roger : there should still be lots of other 'entertainment' left :
chess, walking, even bicycle riding (!) , but playing around with a gun? hbg

perhaps parachute jumping might be ok, not likely to hurt anyone else (just kidding)

as far as displaying reckless behavior, that needs to be decided, not blurted out by someone who' s not qualified by reason of no information.

Most states put the burden of proof on the hunter causing the accident. Its not the usual "innocent till proven guilty" Were talking about hunting privileges being taken away (unless Mr Wittington expires).

Cheney must prove that hes not acted in a reckless manner. Of course, Im certain that no charges would be brought down on him, hes immune to laws that affect ordinary people, and he shows his disdain for us .

Time to take the keys away from grandpa.

At this point, I have to ask if those are my only choices.

Hm, what happens if the victim can't remember? That's what his daughter said in one of the articles. Is it still an accident if the shooter were blitzed out of his mind? If he refused to wear a required prescription lens, would it still be an accident?

Would it be a good thing for Mr. Whittington to die? Not from his perspective, certainly. Naturally, I wish him a long and happy life after full recovery from this terrible accident.

Cheney does not think twice about killing whether it be quail, Iraqis or lawyers. The man is not fit to be in any office much less next in line for the presidency!

Princess, yes, I wondered early if Cheney was having vision problems, e.g., peripheral vision.
I guess I still don't understand the field position of all involved, and agree with those who questioned the distance re the gauge/choke of the gun.

I step aside to no one in my loathing of Cheney and cohorts, but that aside, wish Whittington well in his recovery. I'm sorry about this whole episode - it is at the least one more bit of buffoonery from a sequence of administrations - if it has any negative effect on the administration's popularity, it is a bit of a problematic gain to me, as I'd rather the voters decide on issues. This episode may be an example of rampant hubris, but is a tangent to the main story.

"He later added: "I had a bit of the feeling that the press corps was upset because, to some extent, it was about them ?- they didn't like the idea that we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times."

Absolute truth!

Journalists List Unanswered Cheney Shooting Questions
Journalists On Shooting Story List Unanswered Questions
Vice President Cheney
By Joe Strupp, editor E & P
Published: February 15, 2006

For several days, the lag in news emerging about a shooting incident involving Vice President Dick Cheney has dominated media coverage of the episode. But based on interviews with E&P this morning, journalists covering or directing the story are becoming increasingly interested in the actual chain of events in the field, and at the White House, on the night of the shooting, when the vice president wounded his hunting companion, Harry Whittington.

For reporters and editors, from Texas to Washington, D.C., the details of the shooting itself and the immediate aftermath are the top unknowns, they say. As news staffers continue to pursue the story, many contend that the lack of detail is so vast that offering a clear picture of events is nearly impossible.

"The whole chronology of the accident, what occurred," Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, said when asked what details he would like to know. "There is a lot that we don't know yet. We have to find out."

Specifically, those who spoke with E&P Wednesday cited details ranging from how far Cheney was standing from the victim (less than the 30 yards as claimed?) to why law enforcement investigators were turned away from the ranch Saturday night. "I would love to have a videotape of exactly what happened," said Robert Rivard, editor of the San Antonio Express-News, which has three reporters on the story. "It is a real reporting challenge because it is after the fact. There is not much of a record. The vice president left the state without so much as a statement. How is that?"

George Hager, White House editor for USA Today, also sought specifics on who turned away whom at the ranch. He noted that many simple details become more interesting to reporters when they are withheld. "That is a journalist's nature," he said.

Several news outlets have gone to experts or even simulated what a shot from 30 yards, the distance reportedly between Cheney and Whittington, would do to its target. The Corpus Christi [Texas] Caller-Times, which broke the story Sunday morning, has posted a useful video of such a simulation on its Web site, but it shows a pellet pattern on a sheet of paper--quite different from the reality of the birdshot penetrating layers of clothing and skin.

Todd Gillman of The Dallas Morning News says that reporting has at least raised suspicions about the reported distance. "As far as we know, no investigators have gone out to measure where he was standing," Gillman said.

There is also the question of why the incident was not publicly revealed by the vice president's office until the next day, and only after news outlets reported it. "Was there something going on that they needed to get their ducks in a row?" asks Mark Silva, a White House correspondent for the Chicago Tribune. "Were they worried about Whittington's condition? What were the chain of events after the shooting? What exactly happened that night?"

Such unknowns have already sparked somewhat far-reaching speculation. While unproven and in some cases unlikely, lack of an official version allows such ideas to gain traction.

Several journalists also pointed to the victim, Whittington, noting that he has not been interviewed by reporters or even released his account of the incident.

"I'd like to hear Whittington's version of events," said Ron Hutcheson, a White House correspondent for Knight Ridder and past president of the White House Correspondents Association.

"Did it all happen the way we have been told?" Gillman of the Dallas Morning News agreed. "We want to know his version," he said. "He is the other eyewitness and all of the blame seems to be heaped in his direction. "

Gillman added that Whittington's injuries were first described as superficial but he is still in intensive care and suffered a minor heart attack. "It has only come out slowly, the extent of his injuries," he said. "Pellets penetrating his heart were not on the radar at the beginning of this."

Katy Garcia of the Caller-Times, who helped break the first story on Sunday, today called information on the victim "vague....If we could get in to talk to him, that would be great," she said.

Finally, numerous details about the communications between the vice president and the president, both immediately after the shooting and since then, remain unknown, reporters and editors say. "There are obvious questions about what was going on at the White House between the president's staff and the vice president's staff," said Richard Stevenson of The New York Times. "And in Texas with the Secret Service and local law enforcement. It says something about the vice president and this White House."

Silva agreed, saying "you get a picture of the president's office having no control over the vice president's office, the internal fight over turf."

Questions also surround key witness Katharine Armstrong, the ranch owner: How far was she from the shooting scene and could she really see what was happening? Why has her story changed about how much involvement the vice president had in getting the story out on Sunday? Why did she downplay the victim's injuries so much at first?

Troubling Questions About Cheney's Boss
Troubling Questions About Cheney's Boss
By Greg Mitchell, Editor E&P
February 14, 2006

While Vice President Cheney continues to catch flak for grossly mishandling the aftermath of the shooting in Texas last Saturday, it is amazing that, relatively speaking, his boss, President Bush, is not drawing just as much blame. True, Cheney deserves extra scrutiny for breaking several cardinal rules of hunting when he plugged Mr. Whittington, and for whatever else he may be hiding.

But as for the slow reporting of the incident?-with a nod to Watergate we will call it "the 18 ½ hour gap"?-why is the media dumping it mainly on Vice when perhaps it should be versa? Isn't the president in charge here?

Good question. And what if the president, contrary to the official story, was not told about Cheney as shootist on Saturday night?

As Thomas Friedman likes to say: Let me explain.

According to the White House, in its updated timeline, Bush found out that Cheney was the triggerman about 8 p.m. Saturday (from Karl Rove)?-and yet in all of the accounts, many conflicting, of how the story emerged the next day, the president is never mentioned as having any role in the disclosure.

The ranch hostess/chief witness Katharine Armstrong first told us that she and her mother made the decision to go public of their own "volition, " as she put, on Sunday morning, leading to the now-famous phone call to the Corpus Christi newsroom. Later she said that she had run the idea past Cheney on Sunday morning and he approved it, or at least said it was up to her.

Now the official narrative is that he discussed it with her Saturday night and they directed the disclosure "together."

Note in all this: no mention of the president. What we seem to know for certain is that his press secretary was not told about Cheney's role until 6 a.m. on Sunday.

In other words, if we accept the White House version of events, Bush was informed about 8 p.m. Saturday?-and did not inform his press secretary until the next morning, did not talk to his vice president, in fact, did not seem to have any input on telling or holding the story.

So why isn't Bush getting hammered for that? Why is so much of the focus on Cheney? The president of the United States, in this version, heard about his veep shooting a man in the face and chest and did not direct him or anyone else to report this to the nation? In fact, based on her original quotes, we might assume that we would have never heard about it at all if Katharine Armstrong had not tipped off the local reporter.

So, at a minimum, accepting Bush's story at face value, he should be sharing blame on the 18 ½ hour gap, or even taking the lion's share, since he is, supposedly, the man in charge.

But consider another possibility, which has the added benefit of also being an explanation for all of the above: that the story that Bush learned about Cheney's as gunman Saturday may not be true... that the president was among the millions of Americans that Cheney wanted to keep in the dark about this detail.

Space prevents me from printing the entirety of Scott McClellan's press briefing on Monday. But if you read it (at www.whitehouse.gov) you may be amazed to count the number of times he is asked about when Bush was told about Cheney's trigger-happy role. Over and over McClellan obfuscates, stating that much information developed "overnight," arrived at the White House during the wee hours?-he mentions 3 a.m., for example. Typical exchange:

"When did the President know that the Vice President was the shooter? What time? "

"Again, there was additional information coming in that night. And the details continued to come in throughout the morning, into the Sunday morning time period."

It's clear, to me at least, that he is trying to filibuster and hope the reporters let go of that, and accept his very, very, vague timeline. At other points he seems on the verge of admitting that this news only arrived in the middle of the night.

Finally, when the questions keep coming, he states--sort of--that, yes, the president was told Saturday evening, though even then he does not mention a time, which surely should have been in the front of his mind when he stepped out to attend this key briefing. This was nearly two days after the shooting and the White House still didn't have its facts straight.

It took a press release later Monday to spell out that Bush supposedly learned about Cheney as shooter around 8:00 p.m. Saturday.

In any event, Bush is now trapped. If he'd admitted that no one woke him up to tell him, and that's why McClellan didn't know until Sunday morning, that would have painted a very troubling (though not fresh) picture of a disengaged #1 man who is actually, at best, #2. But at least it would suggest that Bush took action and ordered the story out when he did find out about it.

Yet in declaring that he did know about Cheney's role at 8 p.m. Saturday?-and did absolutely nothing to tell anyone about it?-an even more disturbing, and perhaps sinister, picture of the true arrogance of power may emerge.

Wait until more evidence seeps out. Here's a fresh tidbit: Late Tuesday, the Secret Service related that the shooting actually took place at 5:50 p.m. Saturday, 20 minutes later than previously stated--and therefore approaching the 6:18 sunset.

Three Lessons from the Cheney Affair
Three Lessons from the Cheney Affair
February 16, 2006
([email protected]) is a senior editor.

This week's Dick Cheney shooting episode not only serves as the latest example of the heights of denial and arrogance that Washington officials can reach. It also offers several useful lessons in both news coverage and spin control.

This week's Dick Cheney shooting scandal not only serves as the latest example of the heights of denial and arrogance that Washington officials can reach. It also offers several useful lessons in both news coverage and spin control.

Lesson one for journalists: Old-fashioned sourcing and tireless questioning still work. Starting with the reporters at the Corpus Christi [Texas] Caller-Times, who got the story of Cheney's shooting of fellow hunter Harry Whittington on a Texas ranch through a long-standing relationship with the ranch owner, Katharine Armstrong.

Armstrong, whose father, Tobin Armstrong, was a former county commissioner and political activist, and whose mother, Anne, had many ties to Republican officials, had known Caller-Times reporter Jaime Powell for several years. Powell, who had met the family during her time at the smaller Alice [Texas] Echo-News Journal, had been the only reporter invited to the funeral of Tobin Armstrong last year.

When Katharine Armstrong decided to get the word out Sunday morning about the Saturday night shooting, after Cheney and company had been holding back for hours, she called Powell's cell phone. The veteran reporter, out of town at the time, told me earlier this week that she made a few calls on the run, headed back to the newsroom and got in touch with fellow reporter Kathryn Garcia. The two worked the phones and put out a Web story in just a few hours, beating all competition.

True, they were the only ones who had been tipped off. But they worked quickly to check it out--rousing the White House on a Sunday, no easy task, it turns out. While Powell is the paper's experienced political scribe, Garcia describes herself as its health and fitness reporter, yet had the proper journalism grounding to do the job.

But that is just the first lesson. The second continues to be played out daily in the White House briefing room.

Reporters are properly hounding White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Even though the vice president finally submitted to an interview on Wednesday, it was in a friendly forum, with dozens of followup questions left on the note cards. McClellan is the only person to whom the D.C. crew can direct much-needed questioning. Until he or someone else provides more answers, the so-called "media frenzy" should not, and hopefully will not, end.

For a press corps that until the last year or so had allowed Bush and friends to get away with secretive and incomplete information on everything from Iraq to Katrina, this hunger for answers is refreshing.

Finally, lesson three, probably the most important and the least likely to have any impact. It's simple: when politicians make mistakes they must own up to them and inform the public. That's it, no debate. For some reason, Cheney and certain White House opeatives, who have a history of not wanting to disclose information--beyond the names of CIA operatives--don't seem to have learned that.

As former press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Marlin Fitzwater, both of whom worked for Republicans, told us this week, early information out swiftly is what people want. Those in top positions ought to at least, pardon the phrase, take a shot at it.