![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by TofuEmmy on February 13, 2006, at 17:13:07
http://us.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/13/cheney/index.html
My question is this - isn't it against the law to shoot someone in the face, even accidently? Has anyone seen in the news mention of charges? Or would the victim have to press charges?
Obviously, I know nothing of law.
Thanks.
Posted by James K on February 13, 2006, at 19:33:30
In reply to Hunting accident, posted by TofuEmmy on February 13, 2006, at 17:13:07
All gunfire wounds are supposed to be reported to the police. NRA has a set of rules, which I am rusty on, but I believe one of them is don't point a gun at something you don't wish to destroy. I just 10 minutes ago wrote an email to the whitehouse expressing that even though I have never shot anyone or committed vehicular manslaugter, I hope Dick and Laura are okay. My form reply came faster than any reply I've ever gotten. They thanked me for my concerns.
James K
Posted by teejay on February 13, 2006, at 20:01:59
In reply to Hunting accident, posted by TofuEmmy on February 13, 2006, at 17:13:07
Now if only he'd gone hunting with George Dubya eh?? ;-)
It gets worse though.......only a complete fool would shoot a LAWYER! LOL
TJ
Posted by TofuEmmy on February 13, 2006, at 20:41:08
In reply to Re: Hunting accident, posted by James K on February 13, 2006, at 19:33:30
Huh.
He was issued a warning for bad paperwork on his hunting license. "This department is fully satisfied that this was no more than a hunting accident," the Kenedy County Sheriff's Department announced in a statement issued Monday evening."
So if I completely spaz out while driving down the highway and smash into someone, sending them to the intensive care unit, I hope the police say the same thing - heck, it was just a driving accident.
I'm befuddled by this. It breaks no law to shoot someone in the face? Ooopsie. Wierd world.
em
Posted by jakeman on February 13, 2006, at 20:45:25
In reply to Hunting accident, posted by TofuEmmy on February 13, 2006, at 17:13:07
> http://us.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/13/cheney/index.html
>
> My question is this - isn't it against the law to shoot someone in the face, even accidently? Has anyone seen in the news mention of charges? Or would the victim have to press charges?
>
> Obviously, I know nothing of law.
>
> Thanks.I'm sure we will hear more on Leno, Stuart and Letterman.
~Jake
Posted by 10derHeart on February 13, 2006, at 21:20:57
In reply to Re: Hunting accident » TofuEmmy, posted by teejay on February 13, 2006, at 20:01:59
I take it by the ";-)" that was supposed to be funny. Sorry, I can't see the humor in the implication ("if only") that it would have been what? good? better ? if the President had been injured by a shotgun blast instead.
I thought it was uncalled for, really.
Thankfully, sounds like the man's injuries aren't terribly bad.
I did smile at the lawyer joke. Former paralegal, it's a reflex at this point. I can also appreciate that maybe me finding that part funny says something not-so-nice about me :-(
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 13, 2006, at 21:25:55
In reply to Re: Hunting accident, posted by jakeman on February 13, 2006, at 20:45:25
Personally (humor intended, not an assault), I don't think men should have hunting licenses.... The condition of a men's restroom kinda shows they can't aim... :-)
Honestly, I think this was just what it was... an accident, and I don't think he should be charged.
That said, I honestly don't think that someone who can't identify what's behind their target, and shoot safely deserves to be handling a loaded weapon.
I certainly wouldn't want to live on the edge of property on which hunting was allowed with people such as that permitted to hunt.
My two cents....
--Dee
Posted by TofuEmmy on February 14, 2006, at 5:15:30
In reply to Re: Hunting accident, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 13, 2006, at 21:25:55
I agree - it was an accident. But if I change lanes without carefully checking my blind spot and cause injuries, I'm pretty sure I'd get a nasty ticket and wind up in court. My saying it wasn't intentional probably would not help my case.
We are all armed with cars out there. The situation doesn't seem all that dissimilar.
I think if someone shoots someone, they oughta get in a heap of trouble for that. Even if it was accidental. Wandering around with a gun is a HUGE responsibility. If people can just oopsie shoot each other without consequences, they won't be as careful out there as they should.
em
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 14, 2006, at 10:34:48
In reply to Re: Hunting accident, posted by TofuEmmy on February 14, 2006, at 5:15:30
I don't disagree at all. And I never said that it being an accident removes responsibility. At a minimum, I think He should not be allowed again until he completes a hunter safety course and should be responsible for all medical bills resulting from the accident.
I wonder if He would have been charged in NH. Here is our law:
TITLE XVIII
FISH AND GAME
CHAPTER 207
GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO FISH AND GAME
Injuring Property or Person
Section 207:37-c
207:37-c Shooting Human Beings While Hunting. –
I. Any person, while on a hunting trip, or in pursuit of wild animals or wild birds, or while target practicing, who negligently shoots and wounds any human being, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
II. Any person, while on a hunting trip, or in pursuit of wild animals or wild birds, or while target practicing, who shoots and causes the death of any human being, may be charged pursuant to the appropriate criminal code statute.
III. The provisions of this section shall apply to any person hunting or target practicing with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow and bolt.
IV. In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the person shall be subject to license revocation under RSA 207:37-b.
Source. 1997, 188:2, eff. Jan. 1, 1998.
So here, it would only be a misdemeanor, but it's still illegal.
I've read accounts that say the Secret Service prevented the Sherriff department was prohibited from Questioning him. Other rumors state that Blood Alcohol tests are normally required in the event of an unintentional shooting, but I couldn't find anything about that.
I do think it's safe to say that he is getting treatment that others would not be permitted in this case. He's certainly not Jonhhy Q Citizen.
Posted by Racer on February 14, 2006, at 12:37:42
In reply to Hunting accident, posted by TofuEmmy on February 13, 2006, at 17:13:07
How do you spell that disgusted sound my grandmother used to make when she heard something stupid? Or did that require the Hungarian accent to work?
On the news, I did hear that "it was the victim's fault, since he didn't announce himself as he was coming towards Cheney." OK. Got the blame the victim card in play. Also heard that it's such a common thing that the sheriff's department doesn't really pay too much attention. OK. So if all your friends jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge...?
On the other hand, remember we're not talking about bullets here. It was birdshot, which is little pellets that spray all over the place. So, he wasn't "shot" so much as "peppered," although the pellets did break the skin, and some will stay in him. But it doesn't sound as though it's truly life threatening.
Ah, well. Considering that Our Feckless Leader can lie -- not "attempt to mislead" us, but LIE to us -- with impunity, what can you expect? You want any sort of consistency or reason in Washington DC? Better get down to Party Headquarters and start cleaning up there.
Not, you understand, that I have any opinions on this. Hi, Emmy! {energetic wave}
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 14, 2006, at 13:39:58
In reply to Re: Hunting accident, posted by TofuEmmy on February 14, 2006, at 5:15:30
People who have hit other with their car aren't always charged. For intance when someone backs out of a driveway and hits a family member, or when a combination of a pedestrians actions and those of the driver causes a fatality there are often no charges laid.
The same goes for accidents with fireworks, or dangerous chemicals. I don't think it's all that unusual. When the situation involves two people's actions, and bad timing, charges aren't don't always follow, even with guns.I'm no Cheney fan, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable decision.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 14, 2006, at 14:06:27
In reply to Re: Hunting accident, posted by Gabbix2 on February 14, 2006, at 13:39:58
I just read deirdrehbrt's post.
Who knows?
Maybe one of the reasons we're depressed is that we expect justice to involve even politicians.
I mean, that's gonna hurt after a while isn't it?
Posted by gardenergirl on February 14, 2006, at 14:45:49
In reply to Okay, maybe not, posted by Gabbix2 on February 14, 2006, at 14:06:27
Did anyone see Scott McClelland's (sp?) press briefing about this? I'm so glad I'm not a journalist covering the White House. I don't have the patience for it.
And why exactly did it take so long to release this information? Was it appropriate for a private citizen to be the one telling the press? And why didn't the AP wire pick up the story as soon as it was released in the local paper?
And HI EMMY!!!!
gg
Posted by zeugma on February 14, 2006, at 15:47:17
In reply to Disclosing incident, posted by gardenergirl on February 14, 2006, at 14:45:49
Was it appropriate for a private citizen to be the one telling the press?>>
I'm so glad I'm not a journalist covering the White House. I don't have the patience for it.>>
If Dick Cheney had been given the responsibility for telling the press, all we would have heard is that $7 had been promptly sent to cover the stamp he had forgotten to obtain when he used his gun.
And that, in fact, is exactly what we did hear from his office.
Speaking for myself, if I see the Vice President, the President, the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of Defense shooting anyone, for any reason, in my backyard, I will immediately call the Associated Press and let them know, as I have a fair idea that such an event would be of interest to my fellow Americans.
Of course, I realize that doing so will not make Scott McClellan's job any easier, or those of the reporters assigned to the White House. an e-mail distributed by McClellan's office to the reporters began "Q. So when did the president definitely know that the Vice President had shot somebody?" (which is what I assume you were referring to, gg). Receiving an e-mail that began in that way would tax my patience, too, as well as whatever sanity I have left.
-z
Posted by gardenergirl on February 14, 2006, at 16:11:35
In reply to Re: Disclosing incident » gardenergirl, posted by zeugma on February 14, 2006, at 15:47:17
> an e-mail distributed by McClellan's office to the reporters began "Q. So when did the president definitely know that the Vice President had shot somebody?" (which is what I assume you were referring to, gg).
Yes, in the press conference I saw part of, all he answered in reply to what seems like a very specific and simple (ha ha!) question was something along the lines of, "We continued to get information." And then he said, "Let's move on," and changed the subject. It's a simple question. When? I still don't know the answer.
gg, reading and posting as a fellow Babbler, and not a deputy (Caveat for anyone who might choose to spend precious time blogging about this and that)
snort
Posted by damos on February 15, 2006, at 20:29:42
In reply to Re: Disclosing incident » zeugma, posted by gardenergirl on February 14, 2006, at 16:11:35
Okay so this is not political or even on the topic. Just wanted to say how nice it is to see you on the boards, and how incredibly reassuring the sound of your 'snort' is.
(((((gg)))))
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2006, at 8:55:42
In reply to Kinda like leaking Valerie's name was accidental? » TofuEmmy, posted by Racer on February 14, 2006, at 12:37:42
> Now if only he'd gone hunting with George Dubya eh?? ;-)
>
> It gets worse though.......only a complete fool would shoot a LAWYER! LOL
>
> teejay> Our Feckless Leader can lie -- not "attempt to mislead" us, but LIE to us
>
> RacerPlease don't treat injury or death lightly. And please do be sensitive to the feelings of others.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're bad people.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on February 19, 2006, at 18:40:50
In reply to Re: Disclosing incident » gardenergirl, posted by damos on February 15, 2006, at 20:29:42
That was a very sweet thing to say. I've been sick all week, so I haven't been around much.
Have a good week.
(eek, I must be in sinus infection-induced brain fog, because I almost signed my real name!)
gg
Posted by damos on February 19, 2006, at 18:50:03
In reply to Thanks » damos, posted by gardenergirl on February 19, 2006, at 18:40:50
Sorry you haven't been well. You just take good care of you and I hope you feel al better soon.
That would have been a major EEEEKKKK!!!!!!!
=0)
Damos
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.