bobblehead Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 The reason number 4 even exists is comments like numbers 2 & 3. There's some serious ignorance going on there. 603850[/snapback] Not sure what you are getting at... that you can spin shooting a guy in the face? I hope I'm reading you wrong. Initial reports from Scott McClellan indicated that Whittington was in the wrong spot. Sorry, but from what I learned in hunter safety courses, both gun and bow, the victim is primarily at fault when: 1) he shoots himself Line of fire is one thing, but the bottom line rests on the guy with the weapon. I don't see the ignorance in pointing that out, or in the NRA having an issue with a hunting victim being blamed. The Chappaquddick thing: ok, that was snarky, but that is in response to how eager people on the right are to defend this. Someone was shot in the face, how anyone can defend the shooter is beyond me. Sorry, but political leanings should not take precedent. I'm sure you have a response, and I'm sure it's quite reasoned, but the bottom line is someone shot someone in the face, and that is just wrong. Period. Still, after all of that, I don't believe gun control is an issue, gun safety is. And the cover-up? Well, sorry, but that's what governments do - cover up mistakes. The next gov will do the same thing. The point I was trying to make is that the way these people live can not be imagined by most of society, and the things they can get away with is shocking. I don't see ignorance in what I said, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 If the guy Cheney shot in the face were to die (a big if, but it is possible) if this accident were to happen in NY Cheney could have arguably been charged with criminally negligent homicide. I am going on my memory from studying for the bar exam many moons ago, but I believe the definition is where one causes the death of another due to the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. 603781[/snapback] The local police with jurisdiction have already investigated, and found no basis for charges save purchasing an improper stamp. If the guy dies, I don't think they can just turn around and say "Whoops! You're a criminal now." It makes no sense to say it's homocide if Whittington dies, but not attempted homocide if he doesn't. Of course, just because it makes no sense whatsoever doesn't mean it can't happen; we're not talking about reality, we're talking about the law. But it's still stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 It makes no sense to say it's homocide if Whittington dies, but not attempted homocide if he doesn't. 603963[/snapback] Attempt requires intent. Criminal negligence does not require the mental state of "intent." Huge difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Attempt requires intent. Criminal negligence does not require the mental state of "intent." Huge difference 604105[/snapback] Good point. I still think it's stupid, but good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Good point. I still think it's stupid, but good point. 604110[/snapback] BTW, is your signature a quote of what Cheney said right after he shot the guy in the face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 BTW, is your signature a quote of what Cheney said right after he shot the guy in the face? 604114[/snapback] It's a quote of what he would have said if he'd appeared on CNN to answer tough questions, as opposed to answering Fox's softballs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 It's a quote of what he would have said if he'd appeared on CNN to answer tough questions, as opposed to answering Fox's softballs. 604118[/snapback] ...if Jack Cafferty were asking the questions. Or Nancy Grace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 ...if Jack Cafferty were asking the questions. Or Nancy Grace. 604139[/snapback] Jack Cafferty's only redeeming feature is that he's not Nancy Grace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Jack Cafferty's only redeeming feature is that he's not Nancy Grace. 604190[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts