Cheney bags a lawyer

Yeah...I posted this in the "Monday Funnies" thread cause, well, I thought it was funny.

I mean, if I were one of those quail being hunted, I would have been laughing my little feathered arse off.

 But yeah, I'm no hunter but I say guy who pulls the triggeris probably at fault, unless the other guy did something really stoopid.

Our rule is to only shoot in the 180 degrees you are facing when the birds flush.  No spinning wildly and shooting not even to bag a double.  You just can't see what is happening behind you.   If you are in a group of two, you walk in parallel lines and stay even.   When birds flush, you shoot everything from straight ahead to 90 degrees to your side.  I've never come even close to hitting anybody.

TW

If you guys could suspend your dislike of the guy for just a second, you'll note that nobody knowledgeable about the situation is finding him at fault.  There's a reason for that.

It's got nothing to do with how I feel about the guy. I think techgeezer's rationale was pretty sound. From what I've read, Cheyney spun and shot. That sounds like a bad idea anytime... 

No, you both wrote that you have no idea about hunting but assume the guy pulling the trigger is at fault.  Would you seriously have written something similar if you didn't dislike the guy so much?  Be honest.

Anyway, that account is not how it happened.  The guy who was hit was going to get something he shot and didn't announce his position.  You're responsible for letting people know when you're potentially in the line of fire.  There was no spinning and shooting or anything remotely resembling that.

From an AP story on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website:

Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," said Armstrong.

"The vice president didn't see him," she said. "The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good."

The part where it was said the guy came up from behind Cheney makes it sound like he turned and shot him. Do you have a different impression?

And yes, I can honestly say that it makes no difference that I don't like Cheyney...if Mr. Clinton were the shooter, in these circumstances, from what I can glean from the new accounts (that Cheyney shot at something behind him), it sounds like he was responsible.

I would have loved to have seen Cheney's face as he decided which course to follow:

*call an ambulance...*

or

*finish the miserable bastard/cover up.*

"Dick, what are you doing?!?!?!"

"Shut up GW or I'll fix you too. Now hand me that hand saw and start diggin'."

or "did anyone bring a shovel?" 

There have been several different descriptions of what happened, and none have involved him turning suddenly and shooting.  The guy fell back behind the party and then came up on them (from what angle I have no idea) unannounced.  It's his responsibility both to not be in the line of fire and to announce his position.

I don't see what the big deal is - I've been hunting and peppered friends many times - sometimes by accident.

Besides, have you ever tried to follow a bird and shoot with one eye closed, people all around you and a fifth of scotch in your belly? It's no easy task, let me tell you.... The real question is whether or not THIS is the cover up:

Cheney: Rub my feet, Lawyer boy. I'm tired....

Lawyer boy: C'mon, Dick. Not again. I'm sorry I didn't cook your eggs like you like...

Cheney, cocking gun: Git to rubbin, lawyer boy....

Lawyer boy: I'm not rubbing your....

BOOM!

Cheney: Whad' you say, lawyer boy?

Lawyer boy: mmmmmpppphhhhhhhh fffaaaaththhhhh!!!!

Cheney cocks gun again

Lawyer boy: Iiiiimmmm thhrryy!!!!

Cheney: I know. Now rub. ....and this is what we'll tell the press....

Lawyer boy: oooootttthhhhhhaaayyy...

So if he fell behind, do you think he made a big circle so he could approach from the front? Doesn't it sound like he turned and shot? Doesn't that sound like a bad idea?

And doesn't techgeezer's rule about shooting in front of you sound right?

You're really going after this, aren't you?  You can't tell where he was based on the accounts given.  You can't tell if the hunters in front kept going in a straight line.  You can't assume anything. 

Going after this? Nah...just responding.

You're right, I can't tell where he was, but I know the definition of "behind." It means "not in front of." Which meansCheyney had to turn to shoot. It's pretty simple. BUt sure, all of the news accounts could be wrong. 

And if you can't assume anything, why do you assume Cheyney wasn't in the wrong? 

I'm not assuming anything.  I'm going by eyewitnesses to the incident and an actual bit of knowledge.  The guy WAS behind them.  Where he went from there is nothing you or I could possibly know.  There are no news accounts that say he "spun and shot" and in fact, there are many reports stating that they guy shot was in the wrong.

But I'm sure they're all wrong too, right? 

So once again it's not Cheney's fault that he got bad intel on where the target was located? 

Plus, WTF was the Secret Service doing letting some guy with a gun come up behind the VP? 

Good point. Further, you can't assume that Cheney is not a cybernetic machine sent from the future to dominate the world and that this is not the "cleansing" of his cabal of those that are not privy to his diabolical plans....

Back, and to the left.  Back, and to the left.  Back, and to the left.

I think there was a second spitter!

I'm asking this as a Republican so don't get all politico on me.  Does anyone else think it's a bad idea for a Vice President with heart trouble to be around a bunch of guys with loaded shotguns? 

Gunfire is the only thing that calms down Dick Cheney.

Dick Cheney would skull F*** Chuck Norris....

You know...whatever. Anyway, my original point take on of this wasn't about who was at fault. I mean, unless Cheyney shot the guy in a premeditated way, this was a hunting accident.

My take was that this was funny in an ironic way, the way any hunting accident is inherently funny: guys with guns stalking animals without guns. Guys with guns get shot. Animals without guns laugh and laugh.

Karma. 

But you know, let's turn this around. For the sake of argument, if it were Clinton that did the shooting, at a guy who was behind him, would you be defending him so vehemently?

And CHuck Norris would take it like the little b*tch that he is. 

C'mon, man.  "But yeah, I'm no hunter but I say guy who pulls the triggeris probably at fault, unless the other guy did something really stoopid."  Sounds like pointing out fault to me.  That's what I too issue with.

Oh, and I've never posted one political thing on this board.  Assuming things again, are we?