Monday, February 13, 2006

More on "Shotgun" Dick Cheney

More from the AP article:
The accident occurred Saturday at a ranch in south Texas where the vice president and several companions were hunting quail. It was not reported publicly by the vice president’s office for nearly 24 hours, and then only after it was reported locally by the Corpus Christi Caller-Times on its Web site Sunday.
(emphasis added). I guess this is yet another case of the damn liberal media leaking information of vital importance. Seriously, if the paper in Corpus had not reported this, would the White House have ever said anything about it? And why did the White House wait so long? I guess Bill Clinton trying to keep a lid on his extramarital affairs was the crime of the century, but at least he didn't shoot someone with a shotgun.

According to the Washington Post, the White House decided it would not tell the media anything. Instead, the White House expressly left that decision to Armstrong, and it was Armstrong who contacted the Corpus newspaper. The New York Times then asked Lea Anne McBride, Mr. Cheney's spokeswoman,
why the vice president's office had made no announcement about the accident, Ms. McBride said, "We deferred to the Armstrongs regarding what had taken place at their ranch."
What the #$@*! kind of sense does that make? As Josh Marshall said,
The vice president shoots someone seriously enough to require ICU treatment in the hospital and the White House doesn't see fit to make a public announcement? It's left to the owner of the ranch to let people know?
Un-freaking-believable.

Even more from the AP article:
Katharine Armstrong, the ranch’s owner...said she was watching from a car while Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shoot at a covey of quail.

Whittington shot a bird and went to retrieve it in the tall grass, while Cheney and the third hunter walked to another spot and discovered a second covey.

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

“The vice president didn’t see him,” she continued. “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.”
Let me see if I understand. Whittington was behind Cheney, and it was Whittington's fault that he got shot. That's the story?

I will admit that I am not a hunter. I have never been hunting. I do have relatives and plenty of friends who are hunters that go dove and/or quail hunting every year, and from what I have heard from them over the years, this story doesn't seem to make much sense. Given the late hour, I have not tried to contact any of those folks to run this story by them, so I have instead looked for some info on quail hunting safety online. Here's what I found...

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has a publication which lists 10 hunting safety rules:
1. Always point the muzzle or nocked arrow in a safe direction.
2. Treat every firearm or bow with the same respect you would show a loaded gun or nocked arrow.
3. Be sure of your target – what is in front of and beyond your target.
4. Unload firearms and unstring conventional bows when not in use.
5. Handle firearms, arrows and ammunition carefully.
6. Know your safe zone-of-fire and stick to it.
7. Control your emotions when it comes to safety.
8. Wear hearing and eye protection.
9. Don’t drink alcohol or take drugs before or while handling firearms or bow and arrows.
10. Be aware of additional circumstances which require added caution or safety awareness.
(emphasis added). Seems to me that when you know someone in your party has downed a bird and has gone to retrieve it, you should know not to fire a shotgun in the area where he went. I also found some more tips about safety from the site of Riverview Plantation in Georgia, which is owned by a family whose business since 1958 has been hosting quail hunts on their property. Those safety tips include the following:
Prior to moving on up and allowing the birds to flush, each hunter should visibly and mentally locate: each other, both dogs, the hunting rig, and the hunting guide if on a guided hunt. Each hunter should know in advance where he can and cannot swing the muzzle of his gun to follow an escaping quail.

Each hunter's range of gun swing should be from the mid-point between him and his partner and out to his side. He should never cross the mid-point to shoot at a quail flying on his partner's side. Not only is this poor shotgunning etiquette, it is dangerous.

Additionally, a quail hunter should never take a shot at a low flying quail that would cause him to lower the muzzle of his shotgun below a horizontal plane with the ground. Taking a shot at a low-flying quail has ended the life of many fine pointing dogs since the inception of this great sport.
(emphasis added). Note what should be done BEFORE flushing the birds. Note also that Whittington obviously was not flying when Cheney shot, meaning that Cheney was shooting at a low-flying quail.

UPDATE: According to the Washington Post, Katharine Armstrong's mother "said the accident happened after Whittington shot a quail and his dog couldn't find the dead bird. He went to look for the bird but the other hunters didn't know that he had returned. 'Mr. Whittington was in a low place and they couldn't see him,' she said." (emphasis added).

After reading this safety information, it seems to me that Cheney, not Whittington was primarily at fault.

I cited the preceding information so that what follows would be taken seriously. Josh Marshall posed the question of fault on Talking Points Memo, and here's his summation of all the responses he received:
[O]ne point that comes through really clearly from everyone is that when you're hunting and you hit a person -- that's your fault. Period. End of story. Outside of extreme cases of negligence or self-destructive behavior on the part of the victim, it's not his fault. You're responsible, as the shooter, for knowing no person is in your line of fire before you pull the trigger. So this stuff about Whittington being at fault for the accident just doesn't wash for any of the hunters we've heard from.

The other point that comes through in the emails we've received is that most of our emailers seem to have a pretty clear idea what happened here, based on the description provided in the AP article. Some find the facts as described improbable; but most seem to have a general sense what happened.

Again, I'll try to explain what's been described to me using laymen's terms.

You're out hunting for quail with a small group of people. For basic safety purposes you keep a clear mental picture of where your fellow hunters are at every moment. Based on that mental picture of where people are, you create a safe fire area, a range in front of you covering some number of degrees where you know no one else is.

Things can get chaotic and excited when a bunch of birds (I'll just try, as a blanket matter, not to use the jargon) come into range or rise up. But if you don't shoot outside that safe fire zone, then everyone should be safe.

Now, if you read the description provided by Katharine Armstrong, the Bush-Cheney fundraiser on whose 'ranch' this happened, what she seems to describe is this: The birds 'flush'. Cheney picks out a bird and starts following it. In the process he basically wheels around doing a 180. So he's spun around and is now firing backwards relative to the direction he had been facing. And Whittington was just, for whatever reason, where Cheney didn't expect him to be.

Now, this happens. One TPM Reader actually describes watching the same thing happen to his father-in-law. But when it happens it's a matter or carelessness and/or recklessness on the part of the shooter and it involves ignores some of the most basic rules of gun safety.

So, from the information available, Cheney screwed up -- a relatively common hunting accident, based (as most accidents are) by not following basic safety guidelines and being careless. Trying to blame it on the guy who got shot just doesn't wash.
But wait--we all know that no one in the Bush administration plays the blame game, so what's up with blaming Whittington?

Some stories are said to have "legs." Well, this one has got some serious wings, and I can't wait to follow it.

NOTE: The link to the AP article remains good, but the article has been revised at least twice since my original post about this incident, so the quotes contained in this post and the previous one might not appear exactly as they did when I first saw the AP report. It seems that the primary revisions have consisted of adding information.

3 Comments:

Blogger WCharles said...

I'm trying to find a way to describe everything that really concerns me about this whole episode and how it has been handled, but my head hurts from trying to do that. I'll give it a limited try.

This event exemplifies once again some of the SOP of this administration. There might very well be a defense, but the current story doesn't provide one. Perhaps one could be formed if all the facts are disclosed, and that is not something this administration ever does. Furthermore, it's a little late now to present any kind of defense or reasonable explanation. Instead of being straight and honest, the White House determined that the best course of action was silence and then to blame the guy that got shot. That gives an overwhelming sense of "That just ain't right." Moreover, these are also typical tactics of this administration.

And because of the factors discussed above, this incident has become and will remain a much bigger deal than if Cheney and the White House had been more open and honest about it from the get go.

2/13/2006 2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scrap everything in this post except the Clinton comparison! How does the general public not see how easy Bush gets off compared to Clinton?! Draft dodging, drug use, personal and pre-presidential life? You name it, Clinton got hosed, raked over the "liberal media" coals. Bush's cocaine arrest? Gone. Bush's extramarital affairs? Gone. Bush's friendship with Kenneth Lay? Gone. Bush's justification for the war in Iraq (you know, that little incident) Gone. Bush's fulfillment of his Air National Guard contract (ie draft dodging) Gone. Bush's connections with Saudi oil money? Gone. Bush's successful endeavors at any point in his working life? Well, they're gone cuz there weren't any, but why didn't that come up more often? Gone. C'mon! Liberal media... puhleeeaaassse!
History will show what this "liberal media" has fooled us all into forgetting: Clinton moved this country and the world forward. Bush has set us so far back, he's even undone the good his father and Uncle Ronnie did! He waltzed into an office in better shape than it had been in in years, financially and in the eyes of the world. Look what he's done with it. I'd given up on party loyalty years before Clinton came into office. This isn't a partisan issue. Thank God for term limits!

Sorry guys. I don't know what's come over me.

2/16/2006 11:16 PM  
Blogger WCharles said...

Hey, Luth...doesn't it feel good to let go with a good rant? :-)

Seriously, I'm right there with you.

2/16/2006 11:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home